YES, CRITICS CALL FOR CHANGES / 530

Sympathizers with the Baynes dominate the readership of this blog site. I accept that. Other readers, occasional and curious take a peek. Some with vested interest in the Ministry of Children browse as well. Be assured that the parents and advocates of child protection reform who comment here are not a small troublesome faction of uninformed complainers.

Critics exist across Canada and in enlightened countries around the world. Critics are calling for greater accountability for the child protection segment of child welfare. That is what must be understood and processed by responsible parties.

Please hear me say that I believe child protection agencies do serve a vital function to safeguard children. Note that I am saying just as emphatically that child protection departments overstep their mandate.

Residents, neighbours, family members, teachers, doctors, social workers and other professionals have all been informed that they are legally bound to report situations in which they observe or even feel that a child may be maltreated. This has unquestionably rescued some children from dangerous environments. Yet critics will say that this pendulum of social responsibility has swung far too far, and the power to apprehend children and remove them from parental homes is now frequently messing up families and children’s lives due to nothing but a misunderstanding, or false or exaggerated alarms.

Further, child protection offices in B.C. are required to follow up on every report of suspected unsafe or abusive treatment of a child, even a report anonymously submitted. CP workers must then acquire all the information they can to accurately identify risk and then to rate the potential level of harm. That ranking establishes whether the child is in immediate need of protection or whether the investigating SW must investigate further or assist the family. What I do not know is whether these SW choices are subjectively made or whether the process is standardized, that is, that there are standards in place to help the SW to objectively review gathered information and to downgrade the bias of a call-in report.

There is still some supreme damage done to people by frivolous, false and exaggerated reports which are accepted by child protection SWs so they become the substance from which child protection decisions are made. Occasionally a child protection case becomes high profile when the public hears about it through media dissemination. Often such cases have been marked by unique characteristics, such as parents having racist views or parents whose views about child rearing are born from religious conviction but in such cases the complainants are castigated as fringe members of society. Paul and Zabeth Bayne’s case has been considered high profile since over the past 3.5 years Canadian TV networks and numerous newspaper publishers have run hard copy and online accounts of their story. Many bloggers and websites have added the Bayne tale to the many other stories that have been archived to demonstrate the need for changes.

Paul and Zabeth Bayne did not shake their little girl. A judge decided that. But that was the reason why their children were removed initially and why MCFD applied for continuing care. Yet still they do not have their three children and their newborn son is in provincial care as well. Why? Because they couldn’t explain the baby’s injuries to the judge’s satisfaction, that was deemed a small degree of risk. Is it any wonder that a case like this gains a high profile? Three months of further foster care was the ruling and that term comes due on June 2, 2011. And then what? Meanwhile, diligently, the Baynes willingly undergo assessments and take courses to demonstrate their capability and commitment because they have acted upon the judge’s advice that they regard the three months as an opportunity. Call it what it is - a last chance. The MCFD has been relentless not in helping the Baynes but in unsettling them. Now tell me that something does not have to change.