 | ||
| The Federation Press |
------------------------------------------------
A ministry culture that does not grasp the vital interplay between ethics and power, which mistakes policy and court orders for good practice, which misidentifies management techniques for wisdom, and which fails to keep in mind that the measure of a social service ministry is its compassion, condemns itself to social vilification and to judicial inquiry if not full redesign.
It is unfortunate that an entire ministry culture can be established perceptually by a minority of bungling, unfeeling, unskilled and even incompetent employees to the disadvantage of the majority of well trained and dedicated social workers. It is unfortunate that an entire broadly mandated ministry becomes known for the clumsiness and ineptitude of its child protection department. That has occurred over a period of many years within the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development.
Any time a ministry such as the Ministry of Children and Family Development in British Columbia drives defensive parents to view social workers as adversaries rather than allies, and forces parents into crippling financial failure, despair and hopelessness and breaks the spirits of children because of lengthy and often unnecessary removals, the province's citizens and their elected representatives must take notice.
I believe that Honourable Mary McNeil, Deputy Minister Stephen Brown and Director of Child Welfare Doug Hughes will want to pay discriminating attention to so many people who are expressing as problematic the manner in which cases are processed, parents are treated and the speed and frequency with which children are removed. I appeal to you Ms. McNeil, Mr. Brown and Mr. Hughes, knowing that you did not create this present dilemma yet you cannot disregard these complaints. It is no longer an adequate response to say publicly and sometimes on camera, “I have no comment because this case is before the courts.” Please Comment! Do something! Fix this! For the sake of the Ministry and social work and families, dig in and fix this. So many of these family stories do not have to be decided in courts of law.
Do Have a Blessed Easter Weekend
There is a bigger picture. Nefarious outfits like MCFD are at the forefront of how government wants to operate generally. Respect for children and parents are merely a casualty. The Baynes are a thorn in this process.
ReplyDeleteChild protection is just one mechanism for the government to find way to impose "services" on its citizens in order to redirect the flow of tax dollars. It is a perfect example of having a minimum number of employees manage a comparitively large flow of taxpayer dollars.
It will do this in a similar manner to how MCFD already operates, unfettered access across various ministries, Attorney General (Police/Judges), Health, Schools, MCFD etc. and putting online accessible from public portals.
If you want to see another use of the word "Transformation" we first heard used by Mary Polak, take a look at:
Citizens @ The Centre: BC Government 2.0
http://www.gov.bc.ca/citz/citizens_engagement/gov20.pdf
I see commentary on a recent RoadKill Radio show related to this theme at:
http://roadkillradio.com/2011/04/17/you-finance-destruction-of-your-privacy-and-bureaucrats-think-you-don%e2%80%99t-care/
BC Civil Liberties Association Policy Director Ms. Michael Vonn spoke for an hour April 17th. The discussion really is fascinating. http://roadkillradio.com/wp-content/mp3/2011/roadkill_96b.mp3
There are a couple of position papers published on the bccla.org website:
Child Apprehensions in BC Correctional Facilities (1993)
http://www.bccla.org/positions/children/08Child_Apprehensions.pdf
Brief on the Family and Child Services Act - April 1992
http://www.bccla.org/positions/admin/92familychild.html
Given the last document was written 19 years ago, the concerns stated then are remarkably prophetic.
Eloquently stated! And you very fairly distinguish between the many dedicated social workers and those (whether in management or the ranks) who have become mere instrments in a system. A system can never accomplish humane ends without the compassion and understanding of human beings. --Ted
ReplyDeleteRon; what can I say to your writing today but a very loud AMEN!!!
ReplyDeleteI still find one thing to be very puzzling. How is it in the best interests of the Bayne children to keep them dangling in a state of limbo for going on four years? How is it in their best interests to place them at almost certain risk of long term emotional problems through attachment deficit disorder?
Oh yes, I know what the rationale of the judge and the director is. The judge finds a small level of risk that is far short of supporting a continuing care order, but enough for a supervision order.That risk is apparently based entirely on perceived inconsistencies in the mother's testimony based on inconsistent recall of events that happened at a time of severe anxiety and stress three years earlier. Inconsistency perceived during a day and a half of relentless grilling in cross-examination.
Yes that is all the judge could scrape up after 22 days of hearings and three days of prosecution summary. He ignored all the horrible things that the director had done to the family for three years and a week of hostile testimony by non-medical witnesses. Yet on the basis of that slender evidence he was willing to extend that limbo for another six months if he could have got away with it. Judge Hicks fell smartly into line, but took three weeks to deliver his foregone conclusion judgement, probably to create an illusion of independance.
It seems that the reasoning is, no I should say the rationale is that even the smallest degree of risk gives the legal justification to impose whatever the judge feels like doing. It justifies him ignoring the continuing emotional damage to the children and the stress and suffering to the parents and the many people who love them.
Can the judge explain how this serves the best interests of the children and their long term welfare when they finally go home? Can anyone else tell me? The director,the social worker, his supervisor perhaps? Can the new director of child welfare tell me? How about the new minister?
Both parents and children have been placed under prolonged emotional stress by the director, all the lawyers except Doug Christie, and the judge. All in the best interests of the children no doubt. Horrifying. Legal processes swallow more than time. They swallow justice, compassion and children's lives, while inflicting emotional torture on the parents. These long and atrocious delays cannot be laid at the door of Paul and Zabeth Bayne. They sacrificed everything--home, posessions and incurred debt in a desperate attempt to get their children back sooner. They proved to be helpless against the hostile power of the children's ministry and a judge who tolerated everything and even tacitly condoned it.
This may be my last blog until June as I will be away from Victoria. HAPPY EASTER TO ALL MY GOOD FRIENDS ON THE BAYNE SUPPORT TEAM.
Ray, thank you for all that you have done, so kindly, so generous with your time, so passionate to assist Paul and Zabeth with your knowledge and experience. You are a good example to me and to others. Do enjoy yourself and stay well. What is the world coming to? Ray shouted an Amen! On Good Friday. I will remember that.
ReplyDeleteIf indeed it is only "a minority of bungling, unfeeling, unskilled and even incompetent employees" at MCFD who are establishing the culture, "to the disadvantage of the majority of well trained and dedicated social workers," why aren't these "well trained and dedicated social workers" speaking out against the atrocities the Baynes have been subjected to?
ReplyDeleteI really find it hard to believe that most MCFD employees are true child protectors when they are not speaking out against the destruction of this family. And the Bayne family is not the only family. So why aren't all these well trained and competent workers speaking out? Are they all so afraid of something? If so, what? Losing their jobs, as "child protectors?"
My question: What will it take to convince judges of the inherent (and greater, in the Bayne situation) risk of placing children in foster care? Have there not been studies done on this?
ReplyDeleteIn the matter of the three older children, court proceedings are completed. The Baynes have moved to address the concerns of Judge Crabtree. Now, we wait a month and a bit to see what happens.
ReplyDeleteThe Ministry has the option of letting the 3-month interim care order expire June 2nd. The PCA will not be completed then, but several weeks of Project Parent and several other parenting improvement courses will have.
Recall Judge Crabtree's ruling with respect to "the next steps":
"[255] As s. 2 of the Act provides, the family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of the children, but children are entitled to be protected from abuse and neglect and this must be the overriding concern of the Court. The opportunity is now in the hands of the parents. The children are in need of protection. Now is the time to move beyond this question and to take the appropriate steps to address and remedy the situation to satisfy the Court that the children should be returned to their care and custody."
If I am not mistaken, on April 21st a hearing date was to be established to deal with all four children, presumably combining the date to deal with objecting to any renewal, and a protection hearing.
I is not clear if Judge Crabtree is seized with matters as he did not use the word "seized" in his last paragraph, instead it reads:
"[257] In the event that further directions are required the matter should be set down before me through the Judicial Case Manager at the Chilliwack Courthouse."
(reference: http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2011/00/p11_0072.htm)
Matters that should be addressed by the powers that be should raise questions as to why a different judge was assigned to hear Josiah's Presentation hearing. The bulk of the day's Presentation Hearing was to RE-HEAR PAST TESTIMONY!!! Absolutely ridiculous.
The sole basis of keeping Josiah child in care was Dean Tate running through Crabtree's reasons for not returning the children. Humeny and both parents reiterated trial testimony, creating MORE expensive transcripts to order.
This is a monumental waste of public resources.
Judge Crabapple was promised for preliminary appearances and was expected to sit at the Presentation Hearing.
Until the children are returned, only THEN, I believe, can the aforementioned overseers of the system be confronted with the material and asked to explain themselves. We need a full explanation of how this Ministry can allow this magnitude of costs, heartache, tying up valuable social worker, legal and other resources on one case.
Each parent who has had their children removed and subsequently returned need to ask these few questions.
It is ludicrous to hear that a 3-month, or 6-month "parenting" course where someone is teaching the Baynes how to parent, when no testimoney or evidence exists that brought up any such concerns.
ReplyDeleteThis case is like a 3-legged stool that has one leg kicked out - the shaken baby syndrome allegation. What's left?
Public servants are not really in a position to speak out. If they do, they will lose their cushy job and be blacklisted from any other government employment, or any company who receives government funding.
ReplyDeleteReally, an anonymous reporting process must be instituted. If you use the exact same process used by MCFD with children and against parents on government employees and recipients of government funding, you would start collecting some very interesting information. Then a wiki-leaks could reveal everything to the public.
Interrogate those who have anonymous complaints for several days (or months, if required) by an independant non-government funded group that is trained and motivated to do so. Keep the results from these individuals and don't tell them what is investigated. Make them do psychlogical tests, polygraph, investigate their families, question their children and children's friends until a clear picture of this pathology emerges.
The public pays these, we should expect this level of accountability. It should not be the other way around where the public lives in fear of these people.
Until one is first armed with the right information, how can uninformed leaders be approached with only generalizations, a "few" parents compliants and suspicions?
Only when hard core information is presented are actions able to be taken.
A perfect example is the penile testing debacle. However, this is a one candle being snuffed out while a forest fire burns.
I feel pushing a child to after 30 days to a full adoption is in no best intrests of parents ,grandparents and most of all the children.Bill 179 is selling our children off to adoptions and supporting CAS as their best intrest.Why because they are short funded $$$$$ Where does bringing family together ever fit in.Helping origanal family fit in.Where does the childs wants fit in.?????????????? There has been and never will be answers for the truth to what goes on behind closed doors and the paperwork done.No creditability by CAS
ReplyDelete^Have you ever spoken with an adoption social worker? Asked them questions?
ReplyDeleteSharla, April 22, 2011 10:35 PM, said:
ReplyDeleteMy question: What will it take to convince judges of the inherent (and greater, in the Bayne situation) risk of placing children in foster care? Have there not been studies done on this?
------------------
There are stats re: what happens to children who age out of foster care (a very large percentage of them end up in involved in crime, or time in prison, or homeless, and living on the street, or addicted to drugs, or suicidal, or dead). It's only common sense that if you suffer such enormous trauma (i.e., 1. being torn in such a violent fashion from your parents and all you love, often with police and weapons (e.g., tasers) involved, and 2. growing up in foster homes or group homes where you could end up sexually abused, physically abused, etc., and get bounced around like a hot potato), that you are going to be very damaged.
But as far as stats re: the dangers of foster care, we can look at the US (where they are so much more accountable, in terms of the lawsuits that can be brought against government and private individuals, etc.). Here is the situation is the USA:
The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998, reported that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official “safety,” these children are far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population.
According to the California Little Hoover Commission Report in 2003, 30% to 70% of the children in California group homes do not belong there and should not have been removed from their homes.
http://www.alamoministries.com/content/english/Gospel_literature/governmentracketeering.html
Here is some information from the Canadian website, FixCAS:
http://www.fixcas.com/scholar/fatal.htm
"Summary
The most reliable data sources show that the ratio of deaths in foster care to deaths in parental care is 5.25 in Arizona, 9.5 in Saskatchewan, 6.9 in Manitoba, 11.9 in Britain and in Ontario 17.1 or 10.2, depending on whose side you take in a controversy. An overall round number of ten to one seems reasonable.
Projected over Americas 550,000 foster children, there should be 1540 deaths per year. Our list of foster deaths from news sources shows less than a hundred annually. A reasonable guess is that only one foster death out of twenty makes it into the press."
I would put this kind of information in an affidavit, and / or also have the lawyer for parents read it out in court, just so it is on the court record.
Anyone with any knowledge of child protection and / or foster care knows that foster care is a very scary and damaging place for a very large percentage of children.
"There are more than half a million children and youth in the U.S. foster care system, a 90% increase since 1987. Three of 10 of the nation’s homeless are former foster children. A recent study has found that TWELVE TO EIGHTEEN MONTHS AFTER LEAVING FOSTER CARE:
ReplyDelete27% of the males and 10% of the females had been incarcerated
33% were receiving public assistance
37% had not finished high school
50% were unemployed"
*Casey Family Programs National Center for Resource Family Support (my emphasis)
"Children are 11 times more likely to be abused in State care than they are in their own homes."
*National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN)
--------------------
And I would say that the stats are probably much worse than this, because CPS works with the media and other agencies to ensure that news about abuse and deaths in foster care is covered up.
In a further response to Sharla at 10:35 April 22, and others who may wonder about the risk of foster care versus leaving children with their own parents, the following article is illuminating:
ReplyDeleteStudy: Troubled homes better than foster care
"...Kids who stayed with their families were less likely to become juvenile delinquents or teen mothers and more likely to hold jobs as young adults, says the study by Joseph Doyle, an economics professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management who studies social policy.
'The size of the effects surprised me, because all the children come from tough families,' Doyle says. The National Science Foundation funded the study.
Doyle says his research, which tracked at least 15,000 kids from 1990 to 2002, is the largest study to look at the effects of foster care. He studied kids in Illinois because of a database there that links abuse investigations to other government records.
To avoid results attributable to family background, he screened out extreme cases of abuse or neglect and studied kids whose cases could have gone either way.
Studies, including those by Mark Courtney while at the University of Chicago's Chapin Hall Center for Children, show that the 500,000 children in U.S. foster care are more likely than other kids to drop out of school, commit crimes, abuse drugs and become teen parents.
His research has shown that this holds true even when foster kids are compared with other disadvantaged youth."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-02-foster-study_N.htm
Judges need to be made aware of these kind of studies and statistics, and it should be put into the court record, so that no one can say at a latter date that they didn't know. As a judge, you would think the Crabtree and others would be educated men and women, and therefore this would not be news to them. But apparently it is. I would get it on the court record, however you can.
Dr. Unruh,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your work done in connection with the Baynes incident. Before I go on, I would like to tell a story.
Prior to the mid 1970, the Hong Kong Police Department provided well-paid jobs. It was not because that the official salaries were higher than comparable civil servants. It was because that staff working in police stations would find, daily or weekly, in their desk drawers a share of the money collected from illigal gambling operations, sex trades, drug dealers and even road-side cooked food stalls for taking up extra areas. If nayone did not want to accept, he would have to leave the department and find another job. It was operated under a don't ask and don't tell system and run like a syndiate. This phenomenon faded out after the Independent Commission for Anti-Corruption (the Hong Kong famous ICAC)was established.
The B.C. foster care is a big business with an annual budget of $1 billion. Together with the several thousand dollars monthly payment for each foster care placement, it provides the incentive for corruption, or even a syndicated one.
I wonder whether you can use your web-site to solicit signatures to a petition to the B.C. Auditor General. I suggestion that its terms of reference should include:
1. The death rate of chilren under foster care compared with that of those cared for by parents/families;
2. Whether the practices by the Director of MCFD and the staff under him conform with the spirit of the Families and Community Services Act;
3. Whether these practices fufil "value for money";
4. Review the qualifications required for registration as foster carers and the procedure for the placements of foster care;
5. Review or create measures to prevent corrupt practices;
6. Recommend guidelines for the drawing up of budgets for legal expenses, because the present situation is that the authority has endless resources for pressing charges against parents to fight an unfair battle.
I feel that it is time to look at these issues.
Here is yet another example of child protection gone beserk, where the state and its controlled media send out "alerts" that are more intense and widely published than news of terrorists or serial killers. The public is duped into believing they are protecting children from the heinous criminal, the mother, who has dared to "abduct" her own child. This took place in Ontario, which has the notoriously corrupt CAS (see FixCAS.com for more info on this).
ReplyDeleteThat mother doesn't have a hope, and will be hunted down and perhaps subject, along with her little daughter, who could also be the victim or a tasering etc., to treatment worse than a serial killer. This is all in the name of protecting children. What was this mother's crime, you have to wonder, that her daughter was taken from her? Was the mother also the victim of false allegations? What would you do if your child was stolen by the state? Imagine the terror this mother must be experiencing now, knowing that no one is on her side, and that she is being hunted down with ferocious zeal, and that millions of people are on the look out for her.
Amber Alerts are just one more way that parents are cast as the enemy. There are very few cases where Amber Alerts are used in stranger abductions now. Most of them seem to be alerts against parents who have taken their child back from the state. These parents never have, to my knowledge, been successful in escaping the wrath of the state and its vengeful citizens. No one ever questions their guilt, no one - especially CBC - ever asks if the state is justified.
In a post on April 15, 2011, someone requested a link for a court case -D.M.G v. Director, BCJ 682:
ReplyDeleteD.M.G. v. British Columbia (Director of Family and Child Services), [2007] B.C.J. No. 682, 2007 BCSC 461
(For some reason, the citation listed on CanLII is M.G. v. Director of Family and Child Services, 2007 BCSC 461)
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2007/2007bcsc461/2007bcsc461.html
"...[1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Provincial Court of September 25, 2006, granting the Director of Child, Family and Community Services (the “Director”) a continuing custody order for the child M.G., born February 12, 2004 (“Baby M.G.”). The child’s mother, M.G. (the appellant), seeks to have that order set aside, and to be granted custody of Baby M.G. with support services and monitoring to be provided by the Ministry of Child, Family and Community Services (the “Ministry”)...."
"[13] She [Dr. Manthorne) also testified that such an injury is considered pathognomonic for non-accidental injury—in other words, there is very little explanation for such an injury, other than force applied to that part of the body. She further testified that the most common mechanism of subconjunctiva haemorrhages are acceleration and deceleration injuries requiring quite a significant force. Such injuries could arise from a car accident or shaking."
The parents were unsuccessful in this appeal, but there may be material in this case that could assist parents, for example, the following excerpt from this case:
" However, I agree with the appellant that the threat of having a child removed from a parent engages serious, even constitutionally-protected interests akin to those raised by a decision in the criminal law context (see e.g. New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G., 1999 CanLII 653 (S.C.C.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46, 177 D.L.R. (4th) 124 at paras. 56-67, holding that the state removal of a child from his or her parents engages the parent’s right to security of the person protected by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; see also British Columbia (Superintendent of Family and Child Services) v. H.L., [1995] B.C.J. No. 926 at para. 9 (S.C.) (QL)), and that there was therefore a similar duty on the trial judge in this case to provide sufficient reasons to the parties. The removal of a child from a parent is much more serious than the matter of setting interim support."
I read a little bit on this Bill 179. It seems to be something to do with fast-tracking adoption to increase the rate.
ReplyDeleteThe language used in this article is rather frightening to read. When I read terms like "forever family" and phrases like "unfortunately, 75% [of children] have access orders [with their parents]" as if the birth parents were an unstable inconvenience to be dispensed with, I too would be concerned with child-protection originated laws for faster turnover of children.
http://www.feduja.org/yqp/
The correct link for the "10% risk" D.M.G. case is most appreciated.
ReplyDeleteIt is remarkable, although this is only a 7-day trial and a 2-day appeal, this Appeal document (PDF) is 60 pages in length.
It is clear the danger of judges such as Crabtree's mining and cherry-picking other cases for tasty-sounding pull-quotes while omitting the rest of the context of the referenced orders.
A similar trick was pulled by MCFD lawyer Dean Tate when he used a judgement dealing with child prostitutes, as if it had some relevance to the Baynes case. Ridiculous.
I note in the The D.M.G. case, a CCO was granted just 10 months after removal. In the Baynes case, a CCO application was not delivered to them until about 16 months (Feb'09) after Oct'07 removal. Big difference.
Another similarity, a non-offering of services, the D.M.G. case the parents asked about services, the Baynes were not told about the only service that apparently mattered to MCFD Project Parent. I am unclear if parents seek parenting improvment, why this would not be counted as addressing risk without having to admit guilt.
The trial judge apparently suggested a polygraph, which was taken and passed, then later the same judge refused to admit the results of the test. That, as one ground of appeal, failed.
The child's support structure was also used as a derogatory point of evidenc: "It is highly improbably that within this close knit group, no one knew or suspected on of the others. The Caretakers had a choice: protect the abuser or protect the child. They chose not to protect the child." This essentially convicted all caregivers present.
No parental capacity assessment was done, or was requested. While someone spent money on an expensive polygraph test, this was a waste. The parents should have hired a psychologist and had a PCA done. Another fault, the parents should have undertaken the type of parenting courses on their own that are known to satisfy the Ministry.
Another feature in the judgment is differences caught in various police and court statements, which were far more pronounced in the D.M.G case than the Baynes case.
Paragraph 47 is very interesting in that non-admission of responsibility listed as a shortcoming versus a parent position that not being guilty of injury would weight against parents. The next paragraph 48 about one caregiver covering for the other for 'abuse' (the term abuse is used 31 times, not accident [3 mentions] or suspected abuse).
We see again the mention of the infamouse "Dr. Hlady" BC's well known child abuse expert. This person certainly gets around and has been around for quite a while.
What seems apparent to me is that the Baynes efforts have essentially paid off. Multiple experts, media involvment and perserverance have all contributed to change the tide in their favour. Without this, I can certainly see how the typical MCFD railroading process would have had a very different outcome, a CCO.
Any CCO amounts to sterilization of parents - no more baby-making allowed. A medical birth-watch is placed on the parents as we heard was done in the case of the Baynes, so MCFD social workers are alerted immediately in event of hospital attentance or other triggering MSP service (ie. ultrasounds).
Again, than you to Anon Apr25/11 7:05AM for locating this judgment.
Dr. Hlady certainly has been around - here are some excerpts from various Reasons for Judgment on CanLII:
ReplyDeleteDirector v. B. and B., 2011 BCPC 72 (CanLII)
[21] The family returned home, at which point they discovered that the child B.B.’s right arm appeared to be limp. As a result, they went and had the child examined at the Langley Memorial Hospital later that same morning. The child was x-rayed and was observed to have a traverse fracture and two old fractures to the right arm. The breaks, according to the limited assessment of Dr. Hlady, were thought to be suspicious and indicative of physical abuse.
[22] As a result of the findings, Dr. Hlady notified the Ministry.
[26] After viewing additional x-rays and consulting with her colleague, Dr. Hlady modified her initial view. She opined in a letter dated February 15, 2006 (Exhibit 44) that the fractures are almost certainly related to his extreme prematurity.
---------
R. v. Basi, 2011 BCPC 12 (CanLII)
[113] Dr. Hlady testified that there is a correlation between the extent of force with the injuries: the more force the more injuries. In cross examination, however, she agreed that there is no empirical data that more force equates to more injury. She also agreed that there is a significant difference of opinion on a number of issues surrounding shaken baby syndrome particularly relating to issues such as levels of force.
-----------
Director v. M.M. and R.M, 2010 BCPC 337 (CanLII)
[32] Dr. Hlady prepared a report on the 1st of December 1999. Dr. Hlady may arguably be, at that time, the foremost authority in the province for this type of thing, if not the foremost one of the top three or four for sure. There is not a person in this province dealing with child protection matters in court that would not have been able to recognize Dr. Hlady's name, because she has been involved with so many high-profile files. The point I am making is that she is a very respected doctor with considerable weight needing to be given to her opinions when it comes to child protection.
[33] She was of the opinion that some of these earlier injuries just were not explained enough to her satisfaction and that this was a high-risk situation, and the Director at that protection hearing, which, as I said, I cannot remember how many days it lasted, but perhaps four, that, notwithstanding what Dr. Hlady said, I said, “You know, I am not sure I can buy the premise upon which Dr. Hlady is making her decision, because she is saying all of these things are unexplained.” But that is not quite right. There is some explanation being given with most of all of this, and of course it was all in the context of having had no information with regards to any throwing across the floor at that time.
More excerpts from Reasons for Judgment re: DR. HLADY:
ReplyDeleteM.G. v. Director of Family and Child Services, 2007 BCSC 461 (CanLII)
[96] ...Dr. Hlady testified that her impression was that the injuries were not accidental and that a baby of this age could not injure himself in this way.
--------------
Kusch (Re), 2007 BCSC 618 (CanLII)
[6] The third bankruptcy arose out of an acrimonious divorce in which his wife accused him of sexually abusing his daughter. Mr. Kusch says in his March 28, 2007 affidavit that Social Services withheld the report of Dr. Hlady from Children's Hospital, and that if that report had not been withheld, the children would have been returned to him. It appears that the report was prepared on February 18, 1988, and was in the hands of one of Mr. Kusch's witnesses, John Gunyon [phonetic], by March 25, 1988, which is one month after the children had been taken by Mr. Kusch's former wife. Mr. Kusch attaches the affidavit of Mr. Gunyon to his March 28, 2007 affidavit and also the results of a polygraph test which he successfully completed in June of 1988. That polygraph test also refers in some detail to Dr. Hlady's report. Dr. Hlady found no physical definite evidence on examination of any sexual assault, but she did recommend further psychological help for the child in the future.
-------------
Ron, maybe you could have a posting just dealing with this very influential person, Dr. Hlady?
More excerpts re: DR. HLADY:
ReplyDeleteL.C. & L.S. v. H.M.T.Q. et al, 2005 BCSC 1668 (CanLII)
[39] Mr. Walters and Ms. Wenger supported an application for continuing custody, mainly in reliance on the opinion of Dr. Hlady and her team as the experts in child abuse. While they considered what Dr. Traverse had to say, they did not accept his opinion as overriding the child protection team at the Children’s Hospital. Ms. Wenger said that the Ministry had a formal relationship with the child protection team, as a resource.
--------------------
R.C. v. D.F., 2005 BCSC 1149 (CanLII)
[36] Dr. Hlady was concerned at how difficult the physical examination of S.K.C. was, that the child was very anxious and kicking. However, the labia area was found to be normal, the hymen was normal with no dilation or scarring, and the anus was normal. But Dr. Hlady had a concern about the child’s “tremendous anxiety”.
--------
The child W.M-W. born January 2004, 2004 BCPC 476 (CanLII)
[48] The seminal case dealing with unexplained injuries in child protection proceedings is the decision of our Court of Appeal in G(C) [1989} B.C.J. No. 1577 (B.C.C.A.). In that matter, twin babies that were only seven months old at the time of the original protection hearing, and their five-year-old half-sister were found not to be in need of protection. The twins had been examined at Children’s Hospital where x-rays showed that one of the twins had a cranial fracture and fourteen fractured ribs which were four to six weeks old. The other twin had six broken ribs, also approximately four to six weeks old. The parents were unable to explain the cause of the injuries, although a number of implausible possible explanations were given. Dr. Hlady testified that her impression was the injuries were not accidental. The Court of Appeal felt the hearing judge and the County Court judge on appeal had fallen into the mistake of turning the child protection hearing into a quasi-criminal hearing where the Superintendent had a duty to show one of the parents had caused the injuries.
DR. HLADY, influence of:
ReplyDeleteThe child W.M-W. born January 2004, 2004 BCPC 476 (CanLII)
....[52] Back in 2000 in Quesnel, I gave a written decision in the case of M.R. [2001] B.C.J. No 2456, which also involved an unexplained injury. The case is helpful for the summary of the court’s approach to nine different unexplained injury child protection cases. In the M.R. case, a two year old child suffered various injuries, the most significant injury being a broken elbow. There was an acceptable innocent explanation for most of the injuries. The case addressed what weight should be given to expert medical opinions when much of the opinion was based on facts not accepted by the hearing judge:
In order to place weight in an expert opinion, that opinion must be based on facts accepted by the hearing judge. Dr. Hlady placed weight on the June 1999 bug bite incident and I place no weight on that incident. Dr. Hlady placed weight on the bruise on the eye on October 7, 1999 and I give no weight to that incident given it was trivial and the injury was explained. Dr. Hlady makes references to giving weight to a black eye in September of 1999. The evidence was of a black eye on October 1, 1999 and I accept the innocent explanation given as to the cause of that black eye. Dr. Hlady also places weight on a possible delay in seeking medical care for the elbow injury and I have found that there was no such delay. Dr. Hlady also gave weight to the Alopecia (hair loss). The hair loss does cause concern but I note that when Ms. R. cut the child’s hair, that problem seemed to end, and that recovery started while the child was in Ms. R’s care. In any event, while hair pulling may indicate stress in a child, this may not always be the case and should not always be assumed. This is especially so where as in this case, I heard no professional evidence about the significance of the child’s hair pulling. That might well be because this is a complex behaviour, the causes of which are as yet unknown and the treatment of which continues to be experimental. I can not as a judge take judicial notice that this behaviour is somehow related to child abuse.
The above cases represent only a fraction of the ones on CanLII, which in turn are only a small percentage of ones that Dr. Hlady has been involved with, and been responsible for the apprehension of children.
ReplyDeleteGiven that fact, and the fact that the prestige and influence of the Children's Hospital (which has a very close relationship with MCFD) depends crucially on the outcome of cases such as the Baynes, it should be apparent why the Ministry is fighting so hard to win. It's not just a matter of keeping the children, it's their reputations which are at stake.
So, so much depend upon reputation.
Just ask Charles Smith.*
* (My apologies to the blog reader/commenter who has objected to the frequency with which I remind readers of the devastation caused by this now notorious "expert").
Anon "all about Hlady"
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is that you have done a lot of research on one specialist. That begs a lot of questions but I won't bother. I think however, that you have made your point.
Ron,
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't really a lot of work, but it was interesting to see how big a role she has played. The point of my research was to draw attention to the power of "experts" such as Dr. Hlady, and how much influence they have on judges. I re-read the Bayne judgment and noticed her name, and decided to do a bit of checking on CanLII. Sure enough, she is - as one judge puts it - very prominent and respected in the child protection community. From my point of view, judges shouldn't depend so much on these experts. Especially since many of them turn out to be not so expert after all.