“BEST INTERESTS” - THE WAY IT WORKS AND COULD WORK

I confess that I still struggle to understand the concept. That is, I have struggled to comprehend the way CP personnel interpret the concept of the “Best Interests of the Child.” And I do give it an honest attempt.

Our child protection laws authorize child protection (CP) workers to investigate allegations of abuse or neglect. They can apprehend children from their families and they are enabled to place the seized children with foster families. The authority of CP workers is supported by our Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the criminal justice system and the court system. CP workers are immensely powerful.

The processes never fail to leave affected parents irate, estranged and often in despair.

As antagonistic as some of you are toward child protection, I believe that when discussing this subject openly, you must agree that in our society there is a need to protect children from both abuse and neglect. Permit me to suppose that you agree with this premise. Most of you who comment on this blog are incensed by the intrusiveness of child protection agents who work to keep children safe. You feel there are alternative methods. What you maintain is that our own Ministry of Children should concentrate upon a far less disturbing approach, namely, working on a consensual and voluntary basis with the family.

Let’s consider this idea of mediation methodology that we believe would be an improvement. Interestingly, almost unbelievably, other jurisdictions look to British Columbia as an example of innovative CP mediation. Apparently the story is out that some judges have been trained in mediation techniques. I don’t know when this first occurred or whether it is a continuing program. These judges preside at conferences of parents, legal counsels, CP workers to provide both early intervention and a supervisory approach and if at all possible to leave the children in the care of the family.

In theory, child protection mediation tries to build relationship between families and CP workers. When this is working successfully such mediation is akin to a domestic family law agreement rather than a CP agreement. I believe CP workers are trained to employ this methodology but some remain skeptical of the value of the approach because among other things, it may appear to call into question their professional assessment of the parents and the home situation. This might have been the case for the CP Team in Hope, B.C. during these past three years in association with Paul and Zabeth Bayne. While the Baynes were accused of being uncooperative, their testimony was that any “mediation” meetings always steered toward a demand for a confession from them of harming their daughter. That was the conclusion toward which the assessment had pointed.

The primary mandate is still the welfare of the children, yet the newer Surrey crew of CP workers connecting with the Baynes has taken a more mediatorial approach because the judge ruled against the willful shaken baby notion that fueled the MCFD agenda with the Baynes. Yet this is still not the true mediation model. The CP workers are still the facilitators of the Bayne case and that has the likelihood of limiting the involvement of the parents because it disempowers the parents. So here is the way a true mediation model should work. A mediator such as a judge would empower parents to ask questions, speak about issues, and challenge a CP action. To the degree that the parents can actually contribute responsibly to the process they are involved. All parties have an equal contribution to the outcome.

If true mediation were used, more children would remain with families and more parents would engage in skill building programs and initiatives, and children would spend less time in the development disruption created by the sustained removal preoccupation that I have witnessed with the Bayne family.