You might say, “Well Ron, your statement is already categorical enough.” Perhaps so. Yet, for me, the system is out of order. There are so many signs of disorder and the unapologetic interface with parents in those instances where gaffes have clearly occurred is a conspicuous sign.
Why should the public be expected to believe in a child protection system that creates so many stories of brokenness after CP workers have passed through? I keep coming to a conclusion that a fresh vision for child welfare and child protection is required here in this province. We need ministry officers and legislators to pay attention to the stories. These are not mere rumours. They are not fictitious tales. Our social services require more people who love people and who are equipped to give the gift of hope rather than guilt, of resources rather than recrimination, of partnership rather than conflict.
Those social workers who are compassionately motivated are not the ones who generate the strong feelings of loathing even when they must perform very difficult actions. While maintaining objectivity, their sensitivity to the parents’ feelings is communicated in various ways. They may even be heard privately to say, “I’m sorry that I have to do this. I have no choice.” Has a CP worker ever said something like this to you?
Ron This is Ray Ferris, but the machine would only accept anon and yyou know that I am never anon. I am in Oslo Norway and I will be in Reading England for the rest of the week. just took the opportunity to read the blog today. Good to see the good fight is still being fought. I have been glad to be without the stress that this horror story has given me.
ReplyDeleteI met an English woman who used to do foster care near Oxford. She told me that the foster care system has become so ridiculously bureaucratic and over regulated that she and her husband eventually just gave up. Surprise surprise. She enjoyed the kids but could not stand the social workers. Same every where aint it Cheers Ray
Ray, so good to hear from you across the waters. When I tell my wife where you are going, I know she will wish she was there as well. I know that the CP stories abound globally. May the two of you continue to enjoy great health, weather, travel and relationships.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.petitiononline.com/RfrmMCFD/
ReplyDeleteHello Anon 8:55 AM
ReplyDeleteI am supportive or rallying support for a cause, even a petition such as this, yet have a couple of issues, the first of which is how few signatures have been added after a very long time, where the petition will be sent to accomplish any purpose, and finally, the closing sentence which is outdated and should have the new officers' names, example: "Premier Campbell and Minister Polak; you have a duty to protect and support BC's children and youth in our communities. Please act immediately to reform our broken system of services for these, some of our most vulnerable citizens."
The "I'm Sorry" as in, "I'm sorry I wrongly removed your children and didn't think of offering remedial services first, and in doing so violated the CFCSA, your charter rights and crushed your entire family's human dignity..." That kind of sorry? If parents did get that kind of apology, they would be guaranteed a win at a lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteRemember that MCFD goes to extraordinary lengths to obtain an "I'm sorry" from parents. It is to obtain the admission of guilt, expressing remorse, then getting that committment to "correct" your deficiency.
Because of the extraordinary precident-setting legal ramifications of a social worker giving an apology, I really do not see that it is possible for them to say say "oops, I removed your children for four years by mistake" or "oops, maybe we should have done the Project Parent service FIRST before removing your kids" or maybe even "oops, our apologies for moving the children so many times from one loving home to another" or "oops, sorry about not checking properly for alternate caregivers and the resulting bruises on your children".
"Just forgive us, don't sue us." (Ha! as if you could!)
Perhaps an "Sorry I had to cancel a visit" is more on the scale of an apology you are thinking of. Parents don't care about a "sorry" in this case, just restore the lost visit! This will make such an apology more palatable. These "small" things are the kinds of day to day decisions social workers make that really anger parents. These are not legally actionable, just irksome.
---
The expiry of the Baynes 3-month order is coming up soon. MCFD has to make an application to deal with this. Will it be to renew for another 3 months? Another 6 months? What will the basis be - the PCA not yet done, the Project Parent counselling not yet complete?
When this blog is advised of this development readers will get some sense of the tricks MCFD uses to needlessly extend time in care. Remember, the onset of the PCA and Project Parent was delayed.
Observers would naturally assume that any cost consious government would be highly motivated to avoid spending $10,000 per month in supervisioni costs, foster care costs, legal and any other costs.
The clear path to this is ensure that the remedial counselling is completed as soon as possible, NOT to keep extending orders to the maximum allowable time and beyond.
Registration of social workers will do nothing unfortunately. The College is understandably eager to have MCFD workers registered. The government would be fearful not of validated complaints, but the sheer volume of such complaints.
ReplyDeleteAfter following one such complaint by a parent with an active case and then reading of the outcome from the college in rejecting the validity of that complaint, I see no value in the College. If a social worker can lie, and get their colleagues to cover up for them, this means it is too easy to undermine a parent's complaint.
I encountered a similar problem with the college of psychologists. A complaint against Dr. Korpach for her interim assessment of my children that included a reply psychologist's complete PCA by a far more experienced psychologist that also invalidated this women's report. Yet, still, the College rejected any grounds for my complaint. Later, I discovered in Korpach's resume an association with the college that would seem to imply a conflict of interest.
A petition that would ask for something far more simple, such as the publishing in real time, the jurisdiction, durations and costs of removal on the MCFD website. What is needed is to have the public become more aware of the theft of taxpayer dollars when far cheaper and faster solutions exist.
The downstream effects of the trauma inflicted on families while court delays are blamed would improve if the public demanded more equitable solutions.
MCFD's budget is /was being debated currently....
ReplyDelete---------------------------
"THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2011
Afternoon Sitting
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
On Vote 20: ministry operations, $1,330,591,000"
-----------------
My math isn't so great, but I believe that figure is ONE BILLION, three hundred thirty million, and five hundred ninety one thousand dollars $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
And guess what? All of it, is from YOU, the taxpayer. Not one red cent is contributed by anyone but YOU, the taxpayer.
Google - Hansard, Ministry of children,
McNeil, Trevena - and similar such terms to find out what the politicians / critics etc. are actually up to.
http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th3rd/D10512y.htm
Here are the links for the two days that I could find where the debate is concerned with the Ministry budget:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th3rd/H10511p.htm
(This is the first day, I believe, and if you do a search for the word "McNeil," the second instance of this term will take you to the portion of the transcript where the debate on the budget begins.)
The second day of the debate is found here:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/39th3rd/D10512y.htm
-------------------
This is absolutely fascinating reading, so I urge all readers to take a look, if only to skim through and see what the government has planned for you and your children, how the ideology of the day will affect, where your money is going, and how the government will keep track of you and your children.
This portion of the debate is worth noting especially:
"Hon. M. McNeil: The quality assurance line, from what I see, as you do…. I've now got the same sheet that you have. It does do an increase. What I've been told is that this reflects the integration of integrated case management. So as the different phases of the integrated case management come into play, that's what these increases are. It's all about that.
What that's going to allow us to do is obviously provide better and faster services to the clients, with improved privacy features — really allow the sharing of information that's going to have a huge impact on our children and youth."
"Sharing of information." Now what do you suppose that means?
----
"C. Trevena: The question I'm sure the member is expecting next is: how many front-line social workers are working for the ministry?
[1740]
Hon. M. McNeil: As of December 31, 2010, there were 2,610 social workers. That number varies as people come and go, but it's generally around that area — so 2,610."
More from Hansard / debate re: MCFD:
ReplyDelete(Hon. M. McNeil) ".... also wanted to say a couple things. I've had some significant meetings with the Representative for Children and Youth. She actually was the first person I called when I got this ministry. We've had many discussions. In fact, two weeks in we signed a protocol together.
She was very welcoming of the work that has been done recently and of some of the things that we've already happened to achieve together. We are working very closely. I value that relationship, because I think, in the end, that we both want the same outcome, and that's for stronger children and youth and stronger families and communities.
I also had the opportunity yesterday to meet with Mr. Ted Hughes. I have to say that it was delightful to meet with him, especially after I had read his report in detail. So much of this ministry…. Often when you read, you read about his report, which led into Strong, Safe and Supported and the reinstatement, as you know, of the Representative for Children and Youth and a provincial director.
The comment that he made to me right off the bat was that he was absolutely delighted. He was delighted with the work that's been done, especially over the past year. He thinks that the ministry is on a good track. It's doing well.
He was very impressed with the relationship that we have with the Representative for Children and Youth. He met with her last week and mentioned that she's very pleased with the actions that we are moving forward with. He thinks that things are really going well. In fact, he felt that his work had been done."
You are correct re: registration with College of SW. First of all CP SW's don't need to have bachelor of SW with Child Welfare specialization, but college of SW only accepts those with bSW. Second, Child Welfare social workers are answerable only to their employer and the union.
ReplyDeleteThe Legislature links are indeed very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest a standalone article discussing the material within.
I did not know, for example, there was 2,610 social workers -- I thought it was more like 1,300. I also did not know EACh social worker had an average caseload of 25-30 cases. Wow. 78,000+ total clients!
Yes, the Hansard links are very, very interesting, giving you a good idea how the government responds to questions from the MCFD "critic," such as she is (Claire Trevena).
ReplyDeleteAnon May 23, 2011 10:27 AM
ReplyDeleteThe public money budgeted for MCFD is certainly very mind-boggling.
It is even more astronomical if you find out that there are other important costs that are not included in the MCFD budget but that benefit MCFD, and are hidden in the costs of other ministries.
For example, if you examine the details of the MCFD budget, you will find that there are missing legal costs.
What, missing legal costs in the budget? Wait a minute, what about those such lawyers and mediators, and certain contractors, and so on, who are utilized by the MCFD on practically a daily basis? Surprise, for the beginnings of the answers, look in the budgets of other ministries such as the Ministry of the Attorney General, Ministry of Health, etc. just to start with.
A bigger question is how much costs are budgetted and allocated on average for each client, and where that money goes, and whose pockets it eventually ends up in.
Total Budget of $1,330,591,000 divided by 78,000 clients per annum =$17,059/client budgeted per annum, before other costs.
And these questions are just the beginning of what can be asked. And what about judges who approve tons of Orders and Adjournments every day, and their clerks and assistants, and security/sherriffs, etc, they are paid too aren’t they (but not from the MCFD budget) ?
This all begins to boggle the mind as to how costly it can be for the average taxpayer, stoked by either greed or incompetence at the front lines or those who control/influence the upper echelons of MCFD, for it has been estimated by those who know the system from the inside that at least two thirds of the cases MCFD works on are consistently not justified.
A lot of resources have been wasted over the years, and not just wasted if you really think about it, but these taxpayer dollars and human efforts have been turned into resources that have been used to actually cause great harm and suffering to families and ultimately to the future of the nation.
Anon May 24 11:49 PM
ReplyDeleteYou have written some important observations and questions about the financing of the entire child welfare package, the legal expenditures and the contracted special services all of which are related to the protection, safety and support of children in whose lives the Ministry becomes involved, and yet not all those costs are reflected within its own budget. There may be defensible explanations but it does appear irregular or questionable.
I believe that the Hansard transcript does in at least one instance, on just one of the links provided, show that funds are coming from a different ministry (I think it was Health), so it is true that costs are hidden. And if you look at the cost globally, it would easily be in the trillions, and more. In the USA, child protection is a billion dollar industry, this is from a report that was cited on this blog recently, and which if necessary I can locate.
ReplyDeleteThe corruption of child protection accelerates, and is intimately tied to, corruption in general. What could be more fundamental than the family, in terms of society? Once you find a way to make money from the basic unit of society, in a corrupt and ubiquitous manner, you can only expect a massive and rapid fall. We are experiencing that now. The lies and deception that go along with child protection must necessarily colour politics as a whole. You cannot have a just and decent society and simultaneously have this sick beast called child protection, feeding off the same society.
Unfortunately, what many people don't seem to realize is that the underlying philosophy of many Canadians - that the government is here to, and will, protect us, is what makes the whole system, and especially child protection, corrupt.