Yesterday I considered the merits of mediation in the
archetypal confrontation between offended parents and child protection
agencies. Why don’t we see this approach more frequently? Particularly when
some sources report that British Columbia
stands out as a practitioner of this method, we should expect to witness more
outcomes heralding the successes of mediation. I think the report is old.
Mediation by a third party, a judge or some other trained
and authorized arbitrator tends to respect parents’ position, statements,
opinions and self-determination. Mediation empowers parents. Mediation as a
methodology is born from the belief that parents are the ones who should affect
the parenting plan upon which both parents and child protection workers agree.
Of course, there will always be cases in which mediation
will be criticized by parents who feel that they were deprived of a day in
court and pressured into this mediation and ultimately to accept an agreement
to which there was little alternative if they wanted to have their children
returned. Parents are required to compromise for the best interests of their
child. Some will argue that justice can be achieved only in court. Other
pro-children’s rights activists will argue that mediation prioritizes the
rights of parents and children’s rights become secondary. Very early this morning an anonymous commenter left a highly perceptive and informative comment on yesterday's blog post, and I do not want you to miss it. That comments speaks to some of the shortcomings of mediation as it has been practiced in cases in B.C., and in particular the Bayne Case.
I do not know whether MCFD uses this approach. Perhaps some
of you do.
That's what you classify as highly perceptive and informative, Ron? Oh, dear...can't even begin to point out the holes in that post.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you begin to point out the holes to me. That can be more helpful to me than the curt criticism.
ReplyDeleteI find the whole of child protection to be shocking and appalling beyond anything I could have imagined five years ago. That's because I was working hard to do what everyone does in life; you know, family and work and friends, church and the work of helping others now and then.
ReplyDeleteHow many Canadians know about the case of the AB gov't minister Ouellet sentenced August 12/09 who was found to be in contempt of court when he refused to follow the decision of the judge to return a child. His office didn't agree with the judge.
I read a fixcas.com date July 14, 2009, in which the writer used the phrase '. . . a microcosm of parenting culture wars . . . ' While I have been aware of this war for years, such expansive change has happened without consultation or awareness of the electorate that there is the smack of subterfuge.
The "project" of redesigning the culture of Canada as postmodern or civic or non-religious, is a "quiet revolution" and you can find a book by that name describing the goals of some Canadians. I started googling and of interest to the subject is a site called managingchange.com/bpr/bprcult/3culture.htm Most of us are unaware of the sense of purpose the designers of culture share.
The opportunity to intervene in this country's social/family standards of practise may still exist but it is a small window of opportunity at best.