 |
| Picture: Michael Brown, Dreamstime.com |
Cutting to the chase, Judge Hicks' decision, made in light of Judge Thomas Crabtree's decision that Josiah's three siblings require protection, is that Josiah needs protection. In a nine page document using 33 points, Judge Hicks wrote his reasons for his judgement and these are precisely what you would expect given the circumstances that spin from the earlier March 2, 2011 Crabtree ruling.
This baby was born on February 10th. Four hours later the custody of this child was seized by MCFD even though the child was less than four pounds in weight and needed to remain in hospital for at least a couple of weeks.
On February 17, 2011, at the first appearance following this removal, the Director filed a Presentation Form.
The hearing was held on April 1, 2011 with Judge Hicks presiding in a Presentation Hearing under 2.35 of the CFCS Act. The Director sought an Interim Order for custody providing supervised access to Paul and Zabeth. The parents were opposed to this and instead sought an order under s.35(2)(c) that the child should be returned to them or alternatively on an interim basis that the child be returned to them under the supervision of the Director under s.35(2)(b).
Judge Hicks states that a Presentation hearing is a summary hearing and further cites an excerpt from a Judge Tweedale ruling which elucidates that a Presentation hearing is not dealing with the matter of the need for protection but whether the Director should retain custody until that Protection hearing or whether the child(ren) should be returned to the parent(s). So the judge is looking to determine what will be the best care provision for the child until that later hearing. The judge must ascertain risk probability. In Josiah's case, Judge Hicks was required to pay attention to the prior case concerning the baby's two brothers and one sister in respect of which he noted that Judge Crabtree denied the Director's application for a continuing care order yet ordered the three children to remain in custody for a period of three months. Judge Hicks gave attention to Judge Crabtree's reasons. The injuries of the infant girl were serious, unexplained and incurred during parental care. Crabtree was not satisfied with the Baynes' explanation of a fall of one child on the infant girl. It was significant to Judge Hicks that Judge Crabtree did not return the children immediately.
Judge Hicks said that he agreed with the Director's view that Crabtree's conclusions concerning the three children must apply to the newest child. Then he noted that the present social worker has a more productive communication with Paul and Zabeth than previous case workers, and the parents are participating in several programs that point to a positive outcome but there are no guarantees. And the Presentation hearing was not the occasion to decide what the future can and should be. Judge Hicks was satisfied that Josiah's removal was justified and that he should be in the interim custody of the Director with reasonable supervised access to the parents governed by the discretion of the Director.
This is as appalling but as predictable as it gets.
ReplyDeleteI have read the comments following yesterday's post and note particularly those concerning the phsycologist who derives the bulk of his income from MCFD. I think the contributor has been very fortunate after a tough fight, endless research and hard work, to have had his/her children returned. Time to write a book? Tough, tough decisions and never ever forget these people are not your friends not matter what they may say.
Thanks, Ron and Ray again for all this info and work.
After hearing Zabeth describe the hospital procedure to take the images of Bethany's skull, it is easy to understand what has happened to her leg. Why has this not become a major court point?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous left a new comment on your post "Parenting Capacity Assessment (PCA) / 507": But it applies to today's subject and I don't want you to miss it.
ReplyDeleteIn my search, Judge M. B. Hicks has only one hit on a CFCSA hearing, in 2007 sending two teens of crackhead parents to a CCO. He has several judgments for criminal cases.
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2007/00/p07_0075.htm
I found Hicks ruling omitted a lot of what went on in the courtroom I watched. I would have to agree with Mr. Ferris' cherry picking comment in how the ruling was constructed. It is very rare to see a written ruling.
Christie made a great argument for a supervision order. The ruling did not mention the fact the court admitted as evidence a CD full of 60 images of the family home to show suitability.
There were a number of supporters that stood up when the question was posed who would help the Baynes and that was not mentioned. The grandparents are still viable care providers, they were not mentioned.
The judge quoted the standard reasons for granting MCFD an interim care order by quoting an excerpt from a 1999 ruling by Judge Tweedale BCJ 822, which reads:
[10] The presentation hearing is designed to consider the facts upon which the apprehension is made. If there is a dispute about the facts, then they are resolved in favour of the Director. If there is a dispute about the conclusion to be drawn from facts that aren't in dispute, then that may very well result in the child being returned to the parent. Re A.J. [1996] B.C.J. No. 2786 para. 2 (B.C,P.C.)
[11] The jurisdiction of the Provincial Court, as at the initial hearing does not involve a decision whether the child is in need of protection. The question before the court relates to whether the Director should retain custody until the protection hearing or should the child be returned to her parents. Re Engel (December 18, 1981, Vancouver Registry No. A 812240 BCSC) applied in British Columbia v. S.A. [1998] B.C.J, No. 952 at para. 10 (BCSC)
[12] The real question is what is the best way to care for the child until there can be a ~full and complete examination at the protection hearing, Re Engel applied in British Columbia v. B.A. above, para. 11.
[13] If the evidence suggests a risk of harm to the child, the test is much lower than a balance of probabilities. Put positively, where any appreciable risk of harm is established, the court must make an order under s.35(2) and (3) that effectively address that risk. The Provincial Court must however exercise its discretion on the evidence before it, not simply on the manner in which the risk is characterized. British Columbia v. S.A., above, at para. 12 and 13.
If course, there was not harm to the child or immediate danger, but that appears to be beside the point. I would support the Baynes in an Appeal all the way to the federal court.
-----
In a failed search for the referenced Tweedale judgment, I came across another interesting judgment where the Director successfully appealed a Provincial Judge who returned children to parents that MCFD aprehended.
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2008/2008bcsc701/2008bcsc701.html
Ron,
ReplyDeleteHas there been one single MCFD employee, past or present - besides Ray Ferris - who has come forward to support this family, to speak out against this atrocity, to protect children? I'm assuming, especially because of the large number of hits to this blog, and the fact that this is a relatively high profile case, that there must be many MCFD employees who are aware. Why aren't they coming forward to protect these children? And if it is there jobs they are worried about, I guess that means it's more important to keep not take any chances whatsoever with their job security than it is to fulfill what is ostensibly their primary responsibility - to protect children.
The fact that no one - other than a retired employee - should tell us something about this ministry.
I see today's Road Kill Radio with Kari Simpson and Terry O'Neil lists audio files of various candidates, including Doug Christie, leader of the Western Block Party.
ReplyDeletehttp://roadkillradio.com/wp-content/mp3/2011/roadkill_97b.mp3
Doug starts half way into the recording.
To Anonymous 8:50 AM
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that many MCFD employees and in fact MCFD offices access the blog to read posts and comments. To my knowledge no other current or former MCFD employee has commented by name. I don't think that it is surprising that confidentiality is a consideration for current employees.
Anon 11.12 You are quite right about the leg injury during X-ray. This was covered in the Bayne defence closing summary. It was mentioned that the radiologist pinpointed the date as the exact date that there was a hospital process where the baby had her legs firmly pulled. The mother gave evidence of it and the medical reports were filed. The judge chose to ignore this along with anything else which did not support what he wanted to do. When a chief justice makes a flawed judgement, can you blame his junior for falling into line?
ReplyDeleteATTACHMENT DEFICIT SYNDROME
English researcher Dr. John Bowlby wrote a book in the fifties called “Child care and the growth of love. “ In it he warned of the potential emotional damage to infants from having multiple care givers. He wrote a later book in which he modified his position. He said that young babies could tolerate multiple care givers for the first six months provided that they got lots of attention and cuddling. After the first six months it was important to have a primary caregiver. They attach strongly to the primary caregiver at six months. They can tolerate other caregivers as long as they get daily attention from the primary caregiver. Of course this fits in with usual family with care from older siblings aunts etc..
However, from the age of six months on changes in the primary caregiver can be emotionally damaging and the more disruptions there are the higher is the danger of developing the emotional problems which portray an insecure and anxious child. This is what is known as attachment deficit syndrome. Zabeth has the Ontario website with the detail on much of this.
It is obvious that Bethany having a change of primary caregiver at one year of age put her in a very vulnerable position. The boys had no fewer than three changes and the timing was very bad. There was almost a year between one of the changes and the next. The foster parents complain of querulous and infantile behaviour by the boys after visits and beyond. They see it as infantile and regressive and what they describe is classical for attachment deficit syndrome.
The people who who wrote the CF&CSA mostlikely were aware of this and that is why they restricted temporary orders to three months on babies. Also why they emphasised timeliness and set other guidelines, which are once more being flouted. When I was practicing, I would strive my utmost to have permanent plans for babies by the age of six months. Unfortunately, social workers and judges seem to be oblivious to such matters and Judge Crabtree just ensured that he had effected temporary care for nearly four years. And he dares to talk about risk from the parents! Nowadays all knowledge and skills are abandoned to Lawyers and Psychologists, who make the most of the largesse provided by the ministry.
The Project Parent Counsellor spoke several times of attachment issues. She didn't have how to address it. I would imagine she wanted to impress me that she knew of the term and read a book on the subject.
ReplyDelete(Well, of course -- the Ministry causes it, they are well aware of it, they arrange seminars for social workers -- but not to cure it, to CAUSE attachment problems so this can be blamed on the culprit parents for their disaffecting behaviour towards their children!)
Gordon Neufeld is a local psychologist who wrote a book called "Hold On To Your Kids" ( http://www.gordonneufeld.com/book.php )
I inquired if the Ministry would pay for someone qualified like Gordon to do an assessment and suggest remedies. The response was "I don't think the Ministry would go for it."
So, the Ministry causes the problem, they take training for it, but have no remedial services to address the issue. Ongoing supervision and back and forth visits increases the problem. This is often used as a justification to grant a CCO after a year or more of this.
The solution to all this is exactly what you see here, and this is what the Baynes are doing. Make a lot of noise, go public, force the Ministry to have expensive trials, supervision, foster care. Get people reading and contributing, thinking, spreading the word.
Thanks J for the two notes you sent today. I hope that you are sincere.
ReplyDelete"It is obvious that Bethany having a change of primary caregiver at one year of age put her in a very vulnerable position" quoted from Ray Ferris. 10:39am April 20
ReplyDeleteActually, Bethany was not moved to her second foster home until she was 2. She spent the first 2 years with my family. She was moved at the parents request that she be placed with her brothers. I will be the first to admit that moving kids no matter the circumstances is hard on them but her new foster mom and I worked together over a long period of time to ensure as smooth a transition as possible.
Also, I took Bethany to many appointments and I just want to say that at no appointment be it full body x rays or shunt placement, removal, eye exams, and the list goes on and on due to her serious injuries and the medical needs that she had that at NO time was she ever held down with enough force to injure her. Also, when Bethany presented at the hospital she apparently was very weak, hadnt fed properly for quite some time so I am wondering why it could be said that she had the strength to even fight her procedures where she would be held down in such a manner as to injure her?
The hospital staff I dealt with during my 2 years of care for Bethany were wonderful, caring, gentle people who made her visits there as comfy as possible.
T
April 20 5:03 Are we to understand the parents made a wrong choice in trying to have their children placed together while in a foster situation?
ReplyDeleteAlso, when Bethany presented at which hospital at which time?
I am curious about the information given to fostering people. Am I correct in thinking that the fostering parents are given a rundown on the accusations and conditions of apprehensions as though they are facts? No one that I have heard disputes Bethany was very weak or seriously injured but my experience is that babies assume fetal position instinctively and all people do when unwell or hurt. While I have not read all the testimony, I doubt that the hospital staff are accused of being anything other than wonderful, caring, gentle people who make any visits there as comfy as possible. However, I have had children in hospital who have been held down and that did not happen because there were mean staff there. In Bethany's case, I was not there and I doubt that the MCFD were there either to view the procedure. Isn't MCFD, as directed by it's governing Act, all about helping the families of BC?- or is it all about power and adversarial stances against the families of BC?
April 20 5:03 Are we to understand the parents made a wrong choice in trying to have their children placed together while in a foster situation? as quoted by anonymous april 20 10:16 pm
ReplyDeleteUmmm, no thats not what I was suggesting at all. It is just the facts plain and simple. As a foster parent I had no choice in the matter except to do my best to ensure as smooth a transition as possible and thats what we did. As far as Paul and Zabeth wanting their children together I dont disagree with that at all. I would too, who wouldnt?
And you are wrong as far as thinking that Foster Parents are given a "rundown" on accusations etc. We are given the reason for removal that is all. It is not a group of MCFD staff and Foster Parents sitting around gossiping about cases. I personally dont have time for that. I am too busy comforting abused children...
12:59 April 21
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess that says it all!!
To the foster parent at April 21, 2011 12:59 PM:
ReplyDeleteYou say that you are "too busy comforting abused children." But how do you know they are abused? Aren't you making an assumption that you shouldn't really be making? What if someone made a false allegation about you, and your children were taken? How would you then feel if a foster worker then said that it was just her job to "comfort abused children."
Does it ever occur to you that the stories MCFD tells you might not be accurate? You must have heard - over the years - of many bad and corrupt things that have happened within MCFD? So I don't quite get how you could just accept MCFD's stories about "abused" children. Maybe some are abused by their parents, but if you weren't there when it happened - if you didn't see them get abused by their parents - how can you be so sure the government - and MCFD is just another Ministry in this very large government (which is not exactly without its scandals and corruptions) - how can you be so sure they are telling you the truth?
And what if - just what if - they aren't telling the truth? What if you are actually getting paid to look after children who have been wrongfully taken from their parents? Would that not matter to you? Have you ever considered that possibility?
If the government of Canada can get it wrong with a much stricter burden of proof, and find men and women who are not guilty, guilty of murder, and then later exonerate them, how can you be so sure that MCFD has it right, when there is such a pathetic burden of proof?
Does it ever occur to you that the stories MCFD tells you might not be accurate? You must have heard - over the years - of many bad and corrupt things that have happened within MCFD? So I don't quite get how you could just accept MCFD's stories about "abused" children. Maybe some are abused by their parents, but if you weren't there when it happened - if you didn't see them get abused by their parents - how can you be so sure the government - and MCFD is just another Ministry in this very large government (which is not exactly without its scandals and corruptions) - how can you be so sure they are telling you the truth?
ReplyDeleteas quoted by anon april 23 12:37 am
As Foster Parents we are required to take training plus many of us like myself have an extensive background working with children. Speaking for myself my experiences started at home where my mom would take children from the hospital where she worked to our farm for the weekends. We lived in a remote area of BC and these kids were often abandoned at the hospital because it was difficult for the parents to find transportation from the remote community they came from. One child we had was beaten by her uncle with the butt of a shotgun. One was burned from cigarettes, one was raped at the age of 5. My mom taught me compassion at a young age and from childhood on I knew I wanted to be a Foster Parent at some point. I took my ECED as well as special needs and infant development and any other (the list is long( courses, certificates, and training to do with children from early adulthood and it is ongoing today. I never ever just assume something happened no matter who told me, MCFD or otherwise. There are signs to watch for, there are witnesses and most of the time the child will disclose the information at some time. My most recent child told me a day after she was placed with us what happened to her. MCFD had no idea, they were more concerned with the fact that she was malnoursished. Do I think this 5 year old is lying? Do I think MCFD is lying? No, I have the proof in front of me!! And unfortunatley there are many more!
What is the "proof right in front of (you)"? A child who tells you something, which may or may not be the truth (just because a child is 5 does not mean they will tell the truth, they may not even know what the truth is), does not constitute "proof." Again, unless you actually saw the abuse happening, you cannot say it happened. You are not the judge and jury, you are merely the person looking after the children you and MCFD say are abused. For the record, I say the Bayne children were NOT abused, at least not by their parents.
ReplyDeleteFoster parent above states:
ReplyDelete"One child we had was beaten by her uncle with the butt of a shotgun. One was burned from cigarettes, one was raped at the age of 5."
How do you know this is what actually happened? Were you there when it happened, or did you rely on hearsay of MCFD workers or someone else involved in the child protection industry? I'm sure you are aware that MCFD and others involved in the industry (e.g., the formerly highly esteemed forensic pediatrician, Dr. Charles Smith) have claimed, for example, a child was stabbed with scissors by their parent, when in fact the child was attacked by a dog. Supposedly, Smith couldn't tell the difference between dog bites and scissor wounds. If he could make such a stupid "mistake," imagine what a mere nurse or case worker could do.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/12/07/f-charles-smith-goudge-inquiry.html
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens when we give so much power to those who purport to protect children. Lives are destroyed because of the likes of Charles Smith and others in the child protection industry. These parents will never get their children back, or their lives back. The suffering they have endured is unimaginable.
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWhat is the "proof right in front of (you)"? A child who tells you something, which may or may not be the truth (just because a child is 5 does not mean they will tell the truth, they may not even know what the truth is), does not constitute "proof." Again, unless you actually saw the abuse happening, you cannot say it happened. You are not the judge and jury, you are merely the person looking after the children you and MCFD say are abused. For the record, I say the Bayne children were NOT abused, at least not by their parents.
April 23, 2011 2:32 PM"
So wouldn't the exact opposite be true then? You can't support a parent who says "it didn't happen" because you didn't see it.
Also, you suggest a 5 year old is lying? What if, just consider what if the child is telling the truth and you decide a 5 year old doesn't know the difference between truth and lie and send them back? You terrify me with this logic. Some parents, relatives, and/or strangers do actually abuse children - "some." There is homelessness, crime, and tragedy in this world. And guess what, rarely are anyone other than the criminal and the victim present.
Has your home ever been broken into? If so, did you see it happen? I didn't. So I think you did it. There was no criminal. Don't complain on here when the police don't help. They didn't see it either, so it obviously didn't happen.
To whoever keeps citing Charles Smith needs to give it a rest. The guy was found out and removed. He conned EVERYONE. And is exactly one of the reasons he was removed for "actively mislead" his employers' eyes - cited in the article you quoted.
For anon 2:32 and 5:20
ReplyDeleteFor the sake and dignity of the children involved I will not give you more details on why we knew what happened to these kids. And for you to question if it really happened or not makes you seem very cold. I hope you are not a SW or a Foster Parent. I couldnt imagine dismissing an innocent little 5 year old who somehow found enough courage and was brave enough to tell what happened to her!
Mistakes in abuse cases may happen and you hear about those ones because they are highly publicized. But, more often than not, what the child discloses is the truth. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself in Child Abuse.
I have thought about your cold comments all afternoon and felt absolutley sick to my stomach as I tucked this little girl in tonight that you could even suggest something so unfair.
Have a great night
merely the person looking after the children.
There is a news item today, on a superb website that exposes the corruption of the child protection industry, that reveals, once again, how dangerous it is for children in "care," and the disparity between the standards for parents and the standards for those in the child protection industry:
ReplyDeleteThis is what happened to the children in the care of the social worker who didn't even have to undergo a police background check (never mind Parental Capacity Assessments, etc., etc., etc.):
"...Children in her care, aged 5, 6 and 8 years, were beaten with a broom handle, had to rummage in rubbish bins for food and were often locked outside of their Penguin Grove home until dark..."
This is happening all over the world. All it takes is one anonymous phone call (and that phone call could be made by a social worker making a false report, and posing as a concerned citizen - this has actually happened!), and your child can be taken from you forever and placed in the care of an abuser such as Kylie TeKani.
or the opposite can happen such as the mother who locked her son in a closet for many years, nobody knew. He waited to be rescued, nobody rescued him. Or the father in Merrit who they say is nuts, who killed his 3 children.
ReplyDeleteOr the mother who drove her children into a lake.
I'd say they'd have been safer in care...
Oh yes, all the foster parents and social workers can always drag up the very, very rare cases where a parent does do harm to a child and use that case to support absolutely unjust practices such as what we see in the Baynes case.
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as "testimony" from children goes (and I'm sorry you feel "cold" at the prospect of someone not necessarily believing what a child says, or what you say a child said), I'm sure you've heard of infamous cases where what children had supposedly said turned out to not be the truth (e.g., the most expensive trial in the USA - where the children supposedly told social workers and others about satanic abuse). I'll just quickly google this and be right back with a link for you, so you and others can see that we can't send parents and children to hell on the basis of what a foster parent or a social worker says a child says.
Actually, it looks like Sean Penn made a movie about the most notorious case in American history with respect to children's claims of abuse that subsequently turned out not to be true (i.e., the claims of abuse turned out to be coerced, etc.)
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as the commenter who told me to give the references to Charles Smith a rest, I would love to give this all a rest, but as long as this corruption keeps destroying families and innocent children like the Bayne family, I'm going to keep reminding people about the formerly highly esteemed forensic pediatrician who sent numerous parents and children straight to hell with his lies. Real child protectors should never complain about being reminded that we should always question those in power. The reason we had the Charles Smith case was because people accepted his authority, or they didn't care that he was doing wrong. Either way, considering the depth and breadth of the destruction he caused, I shouldn't be censored because someone objects to me posting one too many comments about him.
http://www.witchhuntmovie.com/about.html
ReplyDeleteWITCH HUNT, THE MOVIE:
"...These people are Americans, working class moms and dads, who were rounded up with little or no evidence, charged and convicted of almost unimaginable crimes. All sexual. All crimes against children. Years, sometimes decades later, they would find freedom again, but their lives and the lives of their children would be changed forever. This film shows viewers what the real crime in this case is, not molestation, but the crime of coercion. Viewers hear from the child witnesses who were forced to lie on the witness stand as they describe scary sessions with sheriff's deputies in which they were told -- not asked -- about sexual experiences that happened to them. Their coerced testimony led to dozens of convictions. Many times their own parents were the ones they put behind bars...."
and as many cases of false accusations that there are, there are just as many, maybe more cases of real child abuse done by parents or someone known to the child. Abuse isnt the only reason children come into care either. There are so many reasons. Most of the reasons being poor choices the parent (s) make.
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as the Bayne parents being guilty of harming their child(ren) Welll... even the judge doesnt buy the weak, ever changing story of what happened to injure Bethany so badly.....especially when there was a past history with the Ministry. Try and justify it all you want. you will convince some followers but not all of us.
Thank god for a wise judge!
I published all your comments T. 7:03 PM
ReplyDeleteI published this one as well as the other two 8:59 PM on Sunday and 8:59 AM Monday.
But I must say you have surprised me this time. No perhaps disappointed is a better choice of words. You showed your true hand this time.
Ron I am not quite sure what you mean by true hand. If you need to publish this go ahead I guess. It makes me really angry when I hear the shallow, ridiculous comments aimed at foster parents as if we are to blame. Yeah I get defensive. I love my job and take pride in doing the best I can in a not always ideal situation. I do believe MCFD needs change, so does the RCMP, the school districts, and some of our medical systems. But sheesh, I didnt put these kids in care. And I didnt contribute to them being in care this long.
ReplyDeleteSo why can someone say a child in my care who was terribly injured by her parents may not have been because I wasnt there to see it? I am not talking about Bethany here, its a totally different case. We know what happened to this little girl without a shadow of a doubt. Fortunately it works that way sometimes. But how can someone say something so ignorant? I could say the same thing. All of you who believe in the Baynes. YOU werent there! How do you know what happened? You are assuming innocence for your own reasons whatever they may be and I am more skeptical based on experiences and some knowledge of this case. The judge is skeptical too otherwise the kids would be home. Nobody writes and tells him that hes wrong and how could he know what happened...HE wasnt there!
We are all entitled to our opinions, I know this blog is in support of the Baynes and if you dont want the other side of the opinions etc to write then tell us and we wont.
T. I didn't publish you last note because I want to respect your wish. Let me tell you that your most recent comment (unpublished) helps me understand you. After that I know we would have freedom to speak to one another. You don't get a blanket anti-social worker rant from me on this blog. Others speak from their hurt, anger and experience. I am OK with divergent opinions being expressed but be prepared to read attacks from people who cannot tolerate your point of view simply because this is a Bayne advocacy blog. Thanks for writing again. If you want your last piece published, let me know.
ReplyDeleteIn criminal court a person is considered to be innocent until proven guilty but unfortunately we all know when it comes to "child protection" parents are assumed to be guilty and must prove their own innocence.There are many kids in "protective" care who shouldn't be there, who were never "abused,just wrongfully stolen from their families on mere suspicion and accusation."It is a gross miscarriage of justice.
ReplyDeleteChild protection as it now stands is antithetical to a free and democratic society.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be great if removing social workers put more thought into the transition process in moving children.
ReplyDeleteMy kids were moved five times in 18 month. Each move was done in a deliberately traumatic fashion as possible because the Ministry had no evidence against me, and they need to somehow generate that evidence.
When the public is watching as with the Baynes case, of course extra care is taken with the children. The parents, of course, have a slightly different take on the quality of care of their children.
For Anon Apr 27 12:45 AM
ReplyDeleteYes, understandably of course parents have a different take on the care their children receive within government/foster care. The Bayne case under the spotlight and always with the promise that a new development will be exposed immediately becomes an exception. Part of the reason they began going public a couple of years ago, was the sense of desperation and helplessness they felt when they noticed unexplained marks and bruises on their children. There may have been natural and easy explanation for what they saw and even photographed but then SWs should ease parents minds by inquiring and revealing that. At so many junctures, both SWs and foster parents rather than being offended need to place themselves empathetically into the shoes of the birth parents whose family has been shredded and without any recourse other than an immensely costly and lengthy legal battle. And through all of this the Ministry which should be geared to compassionate service takes on the persona of antagonist.