 |
| Diagonal Confusion - K. Madison Moore |
Understandably. The boys have been in foster care for more than half of their young lives. Do they consider the foster home to be ‘home?’ They must certainly see their female foster caregiver as a mother figure. Are they able to distinguish the difference between foster mom and bio mom? Do they have the same attachment to each of these mother figures? Asking the question is guaranteed to hurt the bio mom. This is not a contest by the way. One woman administers care as a custodial employee and is expected simultaneously to provide affection yet maintain objective detachment. That’s a tall expectation. The other woman cares from an innate, natal connection with possessive love which she has been forced to contain in order to present a civil self-image. That too is a great expectation, decidedly more difficult than the other, because the children for whom she longs, can be with her only hours per week.
What kind of questions enter the minds of these children concerning what is happening in their lives? Can the questions ever be resolved for them? How do their young minds define normalcy? When they observe and compare the families of their school friends to their own divided family affections, what must they think? When finally the court permits them to return to their biological family home and they are there for days, not being picked up and transported, what will they experience? How will they manage the concept of permanency?
And the little girl whose unexplained injuries required her retention by government services and prompted the removal of her brothers from parental custody as a safety measure, what will her experience be like? Significantly different from her brothers’ experience I believe. Unlike them she has never lived with her parents, at least that she recalls. She was seven weeks old when admitted to hospital. We have to be appreciative that the Ministry in the course of time placed her with her brothers in the same foster home, and thankful that the foster parents accepted this additional assignment. This permitted biological familial relationships to develop, which I am confident have assisted the Baynes during their family visits. The Baynes have already made provision for a counselling service to be available to their family when the children are returned.
The Baynes continue presently to work with Dr. Conrad Bowden who is conducting the Parental Capacity Assessment. As well, they are engaged in the scrupulous program called Project Parent. Privacy, confidentiality and seclusion are aspects of Canadian liberty which the Baynes have been required to surrender in order to prove themselves credible and able to safely nurture their four children.
To Victoria 12:48 PM - Hello Victoria - You wrote to Best Interests post and I gathered that your real intent was to caution the Baynes with your remark, so I have sent it to them rather than publishing your remark here.
ReplyDeleteYears hence, when society has finally admitted the torture that families were put through thanks to the policies of MCFD, there will be massive lawsuits. The government now doesn't really care, however, since they don't plan on being around. People who think that this won't happen, need only to look at the residential school lawsuits, or the land claims lawsuits. Wherever there is money to be made, you will find lawyers. And there will plenty of money to be made addressing what is perhaps the most egregious injustice in Canadian history.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, anyone - no matter how seemingly insignificant - who has played a role in this injustice, is very possibly going to go down in history. They may be dead by that time, or just old or older, but MCFD employees and all those working in the child protection industry should realize that it is very likely that they will go down in history - just like Dr. - or the former Dr. - Charles Smith. For the rest of recorded history, they can look forward to ignominy. That will be their final, and enduring, legacy.
As a Foster mom with my own experiences I can commment on the connection between children and Foster families and their bio families. A good Foster home will talk about the bio family with the child(ren, provide pictures if necessary and talk about memories good and bad. They will also embrace these kids, provide love and stability and be ready to let go of them at a moments notice. We get attached, the kids get attached and that is normal considering we spend alot of time together. We refer to ourselves as Aunty and Uncle and consider the relationship with the children to be similar to that. We always remember these are not our children, we are here to provide care that is meant to be temporary. Sometimes its long term care, sometimes the children do not go home at all, sometimes they are with us awaiting adoption and we try our best to prepare them for that. Actually, we try our best to prepare them for any situation that may happen. In our family ( I can only speak for us) we keep the birth family as real as we can. Family values,beliefs, culture,and heritage are discussed with children old enough.
ReplyDeleteAs a mom of birth kids and foster kids I believe the connection to birth family is far more powerful than a connection to a Foster family in most cases. This is usually a good thing but it can also be a bad thing in the cases of children who are not fortunate enough to have a parent that puts them first. The kids in care that actually get to go home are the lucky ones that have parents willing to seek help, put their children first and hopefully have a positive outcome.
My only wish is that parents could be big enough to keep us real to the kids too. Whether they like it or not, we were a part of their lives, sometimes for a long time. Relationships with the foster parents happened and with the bio kids of the foster family as well. If only we could all be on the same page as far as the kids!
Foster Mom 9:40 AM
ReplyDeleteI very much appreciated reading your comment and learning how you understand your role and function, and I respect what you are seeking to accomplish. Commendable. Thanks for writing.
Ron, check out http://www.torontosun.com/2011/05/12/lilley-child-services-needs-a-bit-of-homeschooling - a family forced by the courts to send their school aged children to public school, when they have been successfully homeschooling (something that is entirely legal, btw). The judge refused to listen to expert testimony stating that the homeschooling was very beneficial for these children. AND send their pre-school aged children into daycare instead of keeping them home with their parents. Can you imagine being forced to put your children into an extra-curricular activity like piano?
ReplyDeleteThey are being defined by the Home School Legal Defence fund (http://www.hslda.ca/) in case anyone cares to assist this family. As the article points out, whether you are a homeschooler or not, you should be concerned.
Anonymous "foster mom" at May 14, 2011 9:40 AM says:
ReplyDelete"The kids in care that actually get to go home are the lucky ones that have parents willing to seek help, put their children first and hopefully have a positive outcome."
Oh really? So, what you are saying is that all the children that don't get to get home - that's because their parents are unwilling to seek help, and put their children first.
There have been many - too many - parents who have done everything humanly possible (look at the Baynes, for example), and they STILL haven't got their children back. So, pardon me, but I find your comments offensive. And a tad self-serving.
For Anon 3:30 PM
ReplyDeleteYour expression of deep concern is warranted with your reference to this article and the controlling intrusion to which it points. It is very disturbing.
With respect to parents baring their souls, the way it is supposed to work is the third parties that are hired by MCFD are not privy to parent's private information gathered by social workers.
ReplyDeleteIf MCFD social workers were doing the job they were trained for, counsellors would not be needed and there would be no third party and privacy issues.
MCFD is not supposed to be handing over intake reports and risk assessments without parent's permission. Only the court judgment is public.
The reality is social workers will verbally convey all the nasty details to try to set the stage against parents, and there is no paper trail of this indescretion.
The parents certainly have this option to supply the good portions of their intake reports. They can also suppply the really outlandish sections to illustrate the high level of animosity that emanates from MCFD.
There is no point for parents to point out the inaccuracies in these intake reports to the practitioners, they won't put any part of that discussion in their reports since MCFD pays their salary.
These third parties cannot be repeating unproven allegations without risking a lawsuit, so parents are able to speak rather forcefully on this point if they need to shut off an uncomfortable line of questioning.
These third parties get information directly from parents. That information goes into the reports, and the judge reads it. MCFD gives a list of what questions to ask parents to get around privacy considerations.
Parents don't know the limits are on the range of questions that are asked, so they may fear that not answering may give the impression of appearing uncooperative and they risk having 'paranoid' reflected in their report. I've not seen any questioning guidelines in this respect. I suspect this is as ad hoc as any other Ministry operation.
In advance of a trial, this third-party questioning process can be equivalent of a court-destined examination for discovery - without the court reporter present or need to swear on the bible.
It's all about building up ammunition for or against parents.
It is important for parents to answer questions that are NOT asked, such as if the family makes a good income, support from friends and family, upbringing, religous beliefs, volunteer activities, etc. The point would be if any of this positive information does not appear in the report and you are forced into court, you get to ask the psychologist or project parent person why this good information that was talked about never made it into the reports.
In the case of Project Parent, they make reports by cherry picking details from their memory. I suspect they record sessions, because they do not write notes, and it seems to me their recall is just a bit too good.
Parents have to sign the papers and note any inaccuracies. You do NOT need to sign their reports if they force you. The good part of this is that reports appear every month or three months, so you can guage if the counsellor is working with or against you.
In the Baynes case for example, project parent has to address 'unexplained risk.' Of course they have no clue how to pin this kind of jello on their donkey, so they make up some other risk factor to address.
Public schools are viewed as risk reductions.
ReplyDeleteParents are presented by MCFD as sequestering children in their homes away from the prying eyes of the public in order to hide risk.
Maybe this is why mormon and other such self-contained communities are eagerly persecuted when opportunity presents itself. Such communities present as working models of self-governence that blocks Provincials snoopiness.
Anonymous 4 29 says
ReplyDelete"Oh really? So, what you are saying is that all the children that don't get to get home - that's because their parents are unwilling to seek help, and put their children first.
I never said anything about unwilling parents, and I never mentioned the Baynes. I was speaking more generally than that.
I said:
"The kids in care that actually get to go home are the lucky ones that have parents willing to seek help, put their children first and hopefully have a positive outcome.
YOU are turning what I said into something negative. You are adding on or interjecting something extra there, hence your feelings of offense.
I never meant to offend anyone. I was commenting as a Foster mom with our family's views that the bond between a foster childs natural family is usually stronger than with a foster family.
I said:
As a mom of birth kids and foster kids I believe the connection to birth family is far more powerful than a connection to a Foster family in most cases.
That is what our family believes and tries to preserve.
Anon at May 14, 2011 5:01 PM -
ReplyDeleteI agree re: your assessment of why self-contained communities are attacked by child protection authorities - the State loathes the prospect of parents actually having control over the health, education and welfare of children. Look at what happened in Texas, for example. The FLDS was not - as the Texas Supreme Court ultimately decided - abusing their children. In fact, the real abuse came at the hands of the very vicious hands of the child protection workers, who - in a very cruel fashion - tore families apart. All on the basis - supposedly - of ONE anonymous phone call.
Child protection authorities just keep pushing the envelope though. Like all tyrants throughout history, their arrogance knows no bounds.
I can offer views on three of the foster homes my kids were in. Similar to the story of the three bears. My natural first impression was indeed, these people were caring individuals who got a mere pittance for caring for my children. Good god was I wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe first home was nasty. This was designed to rile up the children so they would not present well with the MCFD psychologist who did a real number on the kids. The kids were commuted to school 2-hours daily, and were fed kraft dinner and other cheap foods while the foster parents ate steak and other fine foods at a different time. There was no love lost when the kids were moved 5 months later.
The second home was portrayed as ideal, minutes away from the kids school. This was a prepratory home to make the environment look good for the psychologist I hired. The children were forcably separated after the assessment was complete to a temporary facility then different foster homes. Oddly enough, this second home burned down a couple months after I got my kids back. With insurance covering the damage, the house is now twice as big. The stories the kids told when they got back would curl your toes in disgust at the tactics these foster parents used under the direction of the social workers. Seeing the emails between these people after the fact through disclosures really put a different spin on my view of the foster parents. Its all about money and manipulation with fake concern for the kids.
The third home was also portrayed as ideal. Nice dogs, foster parents took the kids to activities, they made cakes for the kids, bought them bikes, took them to movies, bought clothes etc. etc. Here though, the kids grades plummetted. Apparently they were given free reign to watch as much TV as they wanted, as much video games and computer as they wanted, homework had zero importance. I suppose this would be called a pinnochio syndrome.
In the last two homes, the kids developed attachments to the foster parents. I would characterize this more as a stockholm syndrome type of attachment. Once the kids got back, the foster parents kept sending farmville facebook requests and the kids ignored it.
In short, I have nothing good to say about foster parents. The industry disgusts me beyond description. In my mind there is little difference from people who acquire stolen goods; they have no right to them. There is no justification.
Schools with beds populated by teachers who care rather than pedophiles, would likely be a better solution than the money grubbing foster care system.
Somehow I doubt we are going to get foster parents saying, Yeah, I'm just in it for the money, I don't really like kids at all. There's always one or more ready to come out of the woodwork to say how great a job they are doing. They always find a nice, polite way to make "bio" parents look bad, and they always find a way to make "bio" parents look guilty.
ReplyDeleteThey never mention the innumerable news stories, studies and evidence that shows how devastating foster care is for so many children. And they never mention the high incidence of abuse children experience in foster care. And they never mention how poorly children who age out of foster care do (but if someone else brings it up, they'll always blame it on the "bio" parents).
To Foster Mom of 9:40 AM and 10:09 AM
ReplyDeleteDo not be concerned. Your first comment on Saturday communicated carefully and well your views, approach to work, attitudes and conduct as you do your fostering. When children must be in foster care, I am glad that a few have you.
Some writers here have had such negative experiences with foster caregivers, are so incensed by a system that foists its power over them, that nothing within the system can be looked at with any objectivity. I understand where that emotion derives. You knew when you wrote your comment that you would receive a backlash. Ignore that. You made your points. Some will appreciate them.
To all who despise Foster Caregivers.
ReplyDeleteYou have experienced the invasion of your worlds by government. You have made all the attempts that you can make to resist, to argue, to prove, to comply – anything to prevent your child(ren) from being removed from your care and placed into a foster family. The legislated powers of the government agencies overwhelmed you. Very little or no effort was made to help you, assist you, or resource you. There is something decidedly wrong about this system that marches to the tune of “the best interests of the child,” because the system knows how to march but it does not know in which direction to march. All of your comments point to the numerous times that it has been errant. Any time a social system leaves people feeling like victims and refuse, it has gone wrong. That’s what child protection has done to many of you.
If you have lost so much, you still have words, and a blog like this still affords you the opportunity to express yourself knowing that a few hundred people will read your sentiment. So you lash out. Some of you swing wildly, blows without much power, deflected but striking anyone that moves within the system wide circumference. Even a well meaning and diligently honest foster mom. It would be better for you to aim, direct your power with its full intensity at the right person(s). Yet, legislation has a way of protecting them even from our words. Write things without substantial evidence and it can be ruled as slander and defamation. Some of you allege Child protection has written slanderous statements about you without culpability. More of the inequality we are claiming. More reason to demand change to the Child, Family and Community Services Act and to MCFD structure and to daily practice within regions.
Some of your stories about what your children have endured within the foster care system are disturbing. Some of the reasons why child protection became involved with you in the first place are an insult to democratically founded freedoms. The comment from someone pointing to the Quebec government’s and judicial quashing of a family’s home schooling privilege is a threatening decision to which I will yet speak and about which we here in the West must be on guard. You have a sympathetic ear at this blog site yet one to which I make every effort to provide the balance that keeps reality and truth and evidence paramount.
I thought the Anonymous Foster Mother at May 11, 2011, 9:40 a.m. was pretty clear when she stated:
ReplyDelete"The kids in care that actually get to go home are the lucky ones that have PARENTS WILLING TO SEEK HELP, PUT THEIR CHILDREN FIRST and hopefully have a positive outcome."
(emphasis added)
That clearly means that the kids (in foster care) who get to go home are ones who have parents who seek help, and put their kids first, as opposed to parents who aren't willing to seek help and who do not put their kids first. In other words if you don't seek help and "put your kids first," your kids don't, or probably don't, come home.
I guess "help" is all the "services" offered by the child protection industry. I guess "help" is admitting you did something you didn't do (and this is the "help" that has been forced on the Baynes and so many others).
This anonymous foster worker fails to mention that many, many parents have their children wrongfully taken by MCFD and child protection agencies all over the world. These parents have, just like the Baynes, ALWAYS put their kids first. Many, many of these parents will never get their children back, even after they take the advice such as the anonymous foster mother's, that is, to "seek help."
I am wondering though, does this foster worker think that the Baynes haven't always put their children first?
I don't think we should call foster workers "parents" or "mothers" or "dads". They aren't. They aren't "aunties" or "uncles" either.
ReplyDeleteAll this untruthful terminology just contributes to the corruption. And it must be immensely confusing and distressing for children, who know, from an early age, that blood relatives and Mother and Father are sacred titles, with deep and profound meaning. Love, trust, safety and care, not getting shuffled to and fro by people who are - too often - in it for the money.
And with respect to that disturbing story regarding the foster workers whose house burned down. I guess now that it is twice as big they can have twice as many foster children in their "care." What people don't realize is how big a business this all is. There was a story recently about a man in Prince George who runs bars and foster housing. I think he was the one who had the house (as an investment?) where the young boy (in "care") was tasered by the police. He's making big bucks.
For Anon 4:49 PM Sat who began with “With respect to parents baring their souls….”
ReplyDeleteYou make good clarifications of what the proper process should be with respect to information gathering and confidentiality. You point to the rights of bio parents’ privacy of information and also to the violations perpetrated by some SWs when they share information with anyone and in particular foster parents. You illustrate the Catch 22 situations that bio parents repeatedly face with regard to third party questioning, i.e. parents not apprised of the questions to be asked, or whether there are limits on the range of questions that can be asked, or whether they can choose to not answer some questions, and what assessment will be made if they do not answer, and insuring that they provide the positive answers to questions that have not been asked but should be asked.
You have given parents some very helpful information here today that should be read as you wrote it. For example: “ Parents have to sign the papers and note any inaccuracies. You do NOT need to sign their reports if they force you. The good part of this is that reports appear every month or three months, so you can gauge if the counsellor is working with or against you.”
RE: Foster care is big business
ReplyDeleteThis is an excerpt from Jody Paterson's story re: the boy from foster care who was tasered by the police after foster workers, or someone, called police for whatever reason.
"...The owner of the group home, Taborview Programs, is a home-grown Prince George entrepreneur, Jordy Hoover. He’s better known in the region for the many bars and liquor stores he owns.
Hoover also owns 30 greenhouses, a nursery growing three million seedlings for the forest industry, and a gravel operation. A 2009 story in the Prince George Citizen described him as having “a diversified portfolio of business in the city.”
That portfolio includes 26 beds for youth with profound behavioural problems, disabilities or other special needs. Hoover received almost $3 million from the Ministry of Children and Family Development in 2009-10 to provide those services. (That same year, he and his companies donated more than $32,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party.)
Hoover didn’t return my call, so I couldn’t ask how he got into the youth-care business. "
http://www.timescolonist.com/Jody+Paterson+column+From+owning+caring+kids/4738288/story.html
And of course you will find the usual self-serving comments in the comment section denouncing parents, blaming it all on them.
For Anon 7:30 AM
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you allow the foster mom who wrote, to simply express her own motivation and experience which is what she was doing. She doesn't need to cover all the injustices within other foster homes and the entire system does she? She doesn't have to cite the injustices around the globe. Nor was she alluding to the Baynes at all, and she does not have to venture an opinion about whether they put their children first. Come on! I know the Baynes put their children first. So do you. I also know this foster mom was talking about her own situation and what it has taught her.
Man I wish people could read what is actually written.
What I read is that this foster "mom" or "auntie" is not just talking about her own experience, despite what she purports at one point (and this, I humbly suggest, is merely a rhetorical device in order to make herself sound more reasonable, but note that she slips into the use of the plural "we," and "they" to describe the "good" foster homes she is referring to and including herself in - and of course she will not write about the bad ones, where children get fed rubbish, are abused, beaten, murdered, at a much higher rate than the "bio" parents who don't put children first). These "we's" and "they's" are at least as prevalent in her comment as her "I's." So she is not, despite what she claims, just talking about herself. "We" means more than one. "They" means more than one. If you are ONLY talking about just yourself, you use "I" or "me."
ReplyDeleteUninformed and naive people, uncritical readers, will read what she has written and they will probably believe what she says, and take it for granted when she writes about parents who don't put their "children first" she is speaking the truth, and that the reason kids are in "care," is because the "bio" parents didn't put the kids first, and wouldn't get the "help" they should have. And while it's true that Ron and I both know the Baynes do put their children first, anyone else who has just perhaps stumbled on this blog, or who may not get the style of writing of the child protection industry, may not realize that the Baynes have always put their children first, and they STILL don't have their children back. So this particular foster worker has it wrong when she makes that claim.
Not being able to see this self-serving writing of foster workers for what it is, is part of the reason we are in this mess. Just because someone says, or writes, that they have the best interest of the child at heart, doesn't mean they really do. Read between the lines - actually it's not even between the lines, it's right there, the blantantly derogatory language which paints all "bio" parents who have their children in "care" as parents who put their kids last.
Far more credible is the "bio" (what an irksome term) parent who writes, May 14, 2011 10:17 PM, about the nasty foster houses. Now THAT comment has the ring of truth.
I said earlier, ‘I wish people could read what is written.’ I said that in view of responding comments the foster mom’s personal comment. Respondents appeared to ignore, misinterpret, wrongly infer motive, and otherwise malign both the foster mom and her expression. Now I am underscoring my plaintiff wish that commenters would learn how to read. This will be the very last comment I write about this matter.
ReplyDeleteThe foster mom who wrote the earliest personal comment at 9:40 AM Saturday, was speaking from her own experiences as both a foster mom and a biological mom of her own children. She was choosing to comment to what degree, for the sake of the children in care, a foster home can effectively make connection with the biological family. To do that, this foster mom prefaced her piece with a reference to a good foster home. That was the standard by which she was presenting her case. She was without question classifying herself as a good foster mom with a good foster home. I will not question that, and no one else who writes to this blog will question that. You get my meaning. She was also implying that there are other “good” foster families, and hence her use of pronouns such as “we.”
Thereafter, with that “good” standard as the marker, she expresses what she believes other “good” foster families such as her own will do to preserve for foster children, a healthy connection with the biological family, such as ‘providing photos” when appropriate, and “talking about memories.” She said that “good” foster homes will confer love and affection and stability. She said that “good” foster parents will call themselves “aunty” and ‘uncle’ as a symbolic way of demonstrating their relationship that is different from the birth parents, and she immediately followed that with the assurance that “good” foster parents never forget that these children are not their own and that the care is customarily temporary. She says that “good” foster homes do what they can to preserve values, beliefs, culture and heritage of the birth family so that is not forgotten or trivialized.
She also pronounced that the birth family is a far more powerful connector than a foster family is for foster children. And then the foster mom said this superior connection is constructive and helpful for the fortunate children whose parents prioritize the children so much that the parents participate in everything that will lead to the restoration of the family union. It is at that point that her remarks are attacked but to attack them one must read into what she said rather than simply read what she said. Don’t read more than what is there, is what I have promoted. She further longs for such an affable relationship between foster and biological parents, that the latter will help the children to remember the foster family. The responses on this blog suggest that will not happen. The foster family may have been part of the children’s lives but that is no something that the parents desires their children to remember nor a memory they themselves want to revisit. She expresses, “if only we could all be on the same page as far as the kids!” Perhaps she realizes now that this is somewhat naïve, or at least only wishful thinking.
The aforementioned foster parent could likely provide considerable insight into the industry. I can well imagine that there are associations, a rating system, training provision etc. This information would be highly useful to post from a first person perspective.
ReplyDeleteThere was a Vancouver Sun story a while back about daycares that have ratings. http://www.vancouversun.com/life/topic.html?t=Topic&q=Daycare
One such daycare my child was in, and I was surprised to find a 'moderate' rating, with several reports regarding Incidents of Abuse History, a score of 12 out of a possible 15.
The Vancouver Sun also created a useful database to search daycares and there ratings:
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/topic.html?t=Topic&q=Daycare
Something similar is needed for foster homes. Is there, for example, a means by which children can offer comments on specific homes that are accessible by the public?
I recall the highest priority and focus by social workers and counsellors was how well the children liked foster care.
Presumably it is important to keep kids happy in daycare otherwise they would simply run away. That must be embarrassing for MCFD when that happens. I've also heard from several different sources that kids who run away, the foster homes are still paid.
Now, if you replace the search term in the Vancouver Sun link above with "foster care" (instead of daycare), you can see the huge difference in retrieved stories. This is a testiment to the success by which MCFD is able to keep a lid on what goes on in the industry.
Take another look at the Roadkill radio interview of Zabeth recounting how one foster parent told their children they were never coming home.
As a blog reader, I am interested only about the problems and solving them. There is a significant difference from hearing from foster home operators how fine their service is and how pure their motives are; lets hear from parents and the children who lived in those homes tell that story.
Slightly of topic, but I just came across a blurb from an Equal Parenting website that mentions RoadKill Radio's Kari Simpson, and to my surprice on the right hand sidebar I see little animated flames underneath the image of Clyde Hertzman, the noted UBC researcher hired (or funded) by MCFD to create a study on how to locate and process children under 5 who are at risk.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.equalparenting-bc.ca/issues/na_simpson-kari.htm
"HELP invents ideological policy-based evidence to push for increasing institutional child care and decreasing the time children spend with parents"
Google search links include:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Clyde+Hertzman%2C+World+Bank&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
and
http://www.google.ca/search?q=Clyde%20Hertzman&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=vid:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv
Mr. Hertzman can be seen stating his views to the Dalai Lama here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKziNkyScdY
Hi Ron, yes its me writint from Helsinki Finland. you and the Baynes are still often in my thoughts and I am glad to see that you are still strong for truth and justice.
ReplyDeleteAs you know I have known too many unfit parents and too many wonderful foster homes who raised kids into useful adults to accept blanket criticism of foster homes. Read my chapter on foster homes in my book and put bits on the blog if you will.
The main thing I want to address here is denial. I have seen a lot of it among the corpulent elderly Americans on the cruise shop, who deny that there is any poverty in their country or that thirty million Americans are without medical insurance. Alcoholism is the disease of denial and the child protection system of Britiah Columbia is also smitten with the disease of denial. How else could the director live with the suffering that he has inflicted on this family. Now that shaking was rejected, the case against the Baynes was gutted. How can they justify not returning the kids? They are at huge risk of attachment disorder syndrome. Without denial, how could Judge Crabtree possibly reason that it was in the interests of the children to make a temporary order of four years, on a mere technicality. In effect that is what he has done. He may argue that it was only three months but that would be disingenuous. The effect on the children,s lives was four years temporary care and by any sane standard, that is what counts. Bye for now and all the best Ray.
Thanks for popping up Ray. Stay in touch when you can and meanwhile, continue to enjoy this remarkable trip that you and your wife are taking.
ReplyDeleteI heard on average a foster parent receives 18 000$ PER child per YR. It is a way to make $$$. They are not heroes or rescuers of abused children. They work for an oppressive Child Protection machine.They are harboring stolen children and told false stories of so-called "abuse" and turn them against their families. They say and do what the social workers dictate to make bio families look bad.It is common knowledge that the foster care system churns out kids so badly and permanantly damaged they end up dysfunctional,substance abusers, depressed and suicidal,etc.It is also well-known that Child Protection hate homeschoolers as it is in public school that the vast majority of kids are being reported, and for things like bruises, not wearing hats, having messy hair, etc.and they are less likely to be exposed and informed on if they are in the safety of their own homes away from prying nosey parkers and busybodies. It's outrageous!!
ReplyDeleteHi Ron, I still am disgusted at how long this sick game has gone on...my heart breaks for this family as it did years ago. I believe that the Baynes are incredible pp, and that "soon" (I have come to hate that word!) they will be re-united with their precious children. I know that the sw's that begun this whole "thing" can't possibly feel peace in their lives, I bump into them out and about in my community...they look miserable! On a more positive note...when the children do come home, their will be a tough road ahead for the Baynes. BUT raising kids IS tough at times (I have three incredible adult children!)I know that the Baynes are amazing pp with patience like I have never seen. And they have a faith in God that has kept them standing strong! They love their children more than anything, and will do everything to move ahead and gain back what they have lost. Their children ADORE them and just want to be a whole family...their pictures say it all! If any family can live through these last 3 1/2 years (almost 4) of hell and still be left standing strong, I know that they will make it through and thrive being a full-time family!
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with the poster above, who wants to hear from parents whose children have been sent to foster housing.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that someone caught the article by Jody Patterson. I read that too. It shows that it is a profit venture to keep kids in care. They do treat the older kids more roughly than they need to. It is a system that is very hard on young men or teenagers or pre-teens boys. They tar them badly and treat them like they do parents who are involved, as a bad segment of society, perhaps a criminal element. I have teenage boys and I have been down this road and I also fought hard and when my file was closed, I moved my kids to a better neighbourhood, got support from my parents, put them in different schools and got them treated with some respect. My son is a loved and respected memeber of the community and he is thought of as an excellent person. When MCFd was involved, they kept coming into his highschool, interviewing him at random times, making him miss his school bus, then writing that he had 'confided' in them, after forcibly detaining him and he had to walk home!!!!
ReplyDeleteNot sure who Clyde Hertzman is, but I see that he is one of the authors of a 98-page study on the effects of foster care on boys age 16-18. Here is the abstract, and the link:
ReplyDelete"Abstract
This paper uses anonymized linked administrative data from health, education, welfare, corrections and child protection to estimate the impact of placing 16 to 18 year old boys in foster care on a range of outcomes. Both propensity score matching and instrumental variables are used. Workers’ propensity to place children in care and policy changes are used as instruments.
The paper finds that, at the margin, for this group, foster care reduces high school graduation, increases welfare use, increases the likelihood of contact with Corrections and increases the likelihood of being treated for a medical disorder related to substance abuse."
http://economics.ca/2007/papers/0107.pdf