The concept of the ‘best interests of the child’ is a universal theme expressed in a variety of international and Canadian instruments of law and practice. But is it anything more than a theme? Does it actually have content? I am not certain that it does. It is cited with conviction in child protection care proceedings and custody battles but why? Such cases are never decided on the basis of that theme but rather the specific facts of the case. The concept of “best interests” is a part of the rhetoric of child protection agencies.
The deficit is that the modifier “best’ is not defined, in fact perhaps indefinable. Even the touted United National Committee on the Rights of a Child has not taken a position to define the term with precision. Without a definition, “best interests” has no constraints, and then while the trumpeted term sounds politically and morally correct, it can lead to wrong impressions, inaccurate assessments and unjust decisions.
Unless there are obvious and evidential reasons that children should be removed from their living situation it is agreed among the general public that any change to a child’s living situation is detrimental to their well-being. The Ministry of Children is continually proving that it no longer agrees with that opinion and is more inclined to believe that children are resilient. MCFD will deny this but my assessment of cases informs me differently.
As early as the two elder Bayne children were removed, the boys Kent and Baden, at ages 4 and 2, there was stability in their lives with their parents. That was disregarded. I can allow for the time spent in doing investigation, but there was no evidence to prove willful harm by either of the parents. There was speculation and suspicion. There was a medical diagnosis that as far as MCFD was concerned was equivalent to evidence. In March 2011, Judge Crabtree disagreed. Then what is left? A serious unexplained injury to the youngest child Bethany in 2007 and the best interests of the children. Oh, but the injuries did have explanation from the parents. As early as the time of the hospital admission the parents spoke to this. An accident occurring between a sibling brother and the infant girl. But of course, if child protection agents refuse to accept that explanation, then the best interests of the children is open to interpretation by the CP team. And the team continued custody of the children and foster care.
Now it has been so long hasn’t it? How confused are these children? That is not my area of expertise or my justification to speculate. I am sure that Dr. Bowden has adequately appraised the children’s foster home life and attachments and their communication and connections with and their affections for their biological parents. I cannot believe that the best interests of these children can be interpreted in any other way than that they be returned to Paul and Zabeth Bayne. There was no evidence that they harmed a child. There is no reason to believe they would harm one of their children. The continuation of this custody and care conflict borders on brutality for both parents and children. This is not in the best interests of these children.
We care for the best interests of baby seals, for other threatened animal species, and it is certainly proper and vital that we do what is right for these children. Let them go back home where their spirits and hearts belong and where their potential has the greatest and most predictable prospect of being fulfilled.
Taking kids away from their parents, family, home, lives and the comfort and security of everything they've ever known is NEVER in their best interest.Why does the Big Brother gov't authority always think that THEY know what's "best" for us?They should just mind their own business and leave innocent families alone!!
ReplyDeleteJust in my case over an eight year period, I can give you a litany of horrific examples of what the judiciary considered what was in the best interests of my children. The Ministry is also well represented in my children's lives.
ReplyDeleteThe only corrective factor was my efforts to continually undo this damage. However, the cost to my career and ability to materially improve the lives of my children has taken an incredible toll.
This is why I can relate so well to the Baynes situation, because they have set aside their personal interests including their preferred choice of employment to offset the lifelong damage that their children would otherwise face.
To give you the most recent example in my case, a judge ruled it was in my six year old child's best interest to permit her to attend a Ballet recital on Fathers day, and the custodial mother was given an order to facilitate this because she planned the activity. This essentially countermanned a previous judges order that my child would be allowed to spend Father's day with me.
So, mom picked up my child at 8am on Father's day at a restaurant where all of my children were eating breakfast with me, and that was the last that me and her siblings saw of her that day. They will always remember that day because three police officers were in attendance to make sure mom's court order was abided by.
Perhaps there was some empathy on the officers part who understood how the mom manipulated the court to give her my father's day.
The moral of this story is there are always two competing sides who trying to define what the 'best interests' are for a child for the purposes of obtaining a judgment in their favour.
If the Baynes did not have that nine hours weekly visitation to retain those all important attachment bonds with their children, the Ministry would typically use a status quo argument to say that the children were settled with the foster family, had lost their connection with the parents, therefore it would no longer be in the children's best interest to continue visitations. Publicity in this case pinched off the potential for that argument to be used.
Attempting to establish a new status quo typically occurs regardless of the original reason for removal. The Ministry has multiple strategies for retaining children, so while they pretend on one hand to be 'investigating' or waiting for a trial while children are in their care, on the other hand they are building a new status quo on which to put forward a new argument of what is in a child's best interest in front of a judge. The MCFD is truly an insidious operation.
Yes, children are incredibly resilient if they are able to retain a connection with at least one adult who acts tirelessly on their behalf.
Lifelong damages to children arise when one party actively disparages the other, which appears to be one factor in the Baynes case when the children were told at several points by foster parents they would not be going home and they could be their forever family. Too much of this does eventually have a negative impact on the children.
Here is an interesting note that arrived in my inbox today from ParentalRights.org a U.S. group. This development is where children who believe their rights have been violated (MCFD being an example of an agent to assist with the enforcement of those rights) who can escalate their grievance to the U.N. Council in Geneva. So, the children in this case would be deciding what their best interest is, likely with some assistance from other adults who are not the parents.
ReplyDeleteHow parentalrights.org works is they identify an issue of concern, then tell others who agree with that concern how to address it. Typically this is done by identifying the law that is about to be changed, and then telling readers which elected official to contact to let them know of your concerns.
-----
http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={389F5C43-3FEC-4C06-AAF4-5DC850AC677D}
Children Will Soon Be Able to Haul Their Parents Before a UN Tribunal
On June 9th, the Human Rights Council of the United Nations approved a new treaty that will operate in parallel with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Under this “Optional Protocol to the Convention of the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure” children will be able to file a quasi-judicial complaint against their parents, their government, or anyone else alleged to have violated their rights under one of the three existing child’s rights treaties.
In addition to the main CRC, there are separate treaties regarding child soldiers and sex trafficking. These parallel treaties are also called “optional protocols.”
While the United States has not become a party to the main CRC, it became a party to the other two protocol treaties in 2002.
There are two remaining steps for this new Communications Protocol to become fully operative. First, this new treaty must be approved by the United Nations General Assembly. This is a foregone conclusion. Second, ten nations must become parties to this new treaty by signing and then ratifying under whatever process is followed in their own nation. In the United States this would mean the President (or his representative) would have to sign the treaty and the U.S. Senate would have to vote to ratify.
For a long time, we have pointed out that the CRC would give children the ability to file lawsuits against their parents in American courts. The advocates for the CRC have tried to downplay this idea. But now, in broad daylight, the United Nations itself—with the full cooperation and approval of the United States in the Human Rights Council—is creating a new mechanism that forthrightly allows children to “sue” their parents and haul them before the UN Committee in Geneva.
If the United States Senate approves this Communication Protocol, even if we do not approve the main CRC treaty, legal actions could still be filed by American children before this UN tribunal. Such actions would have to arise under one of the two optional protocols to which we are a party.
As is routine for UN treaties, this new protocol requires a child to first exhaust all domestic judicial remedies before turning to the UN tribunal.
Read the rest of the story online
http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={389F5C43-3FEC-4C06-AAF4-5DC850AC677D}
Sincerely,
Michael Farris
President
I can't believe how in my case MCFD expected I needed 'therapy' to help me, when the only thing that I would have needed therapy for was what they put me through.
ReplyDeleteThe best interests of children are indeed subjective and it all depends on who is doing the interpretation. The director thinks that only he is qualified to judge and of course judges all think that they are expert. The term best interest is very vague, but section 4 of the act does try to define that best interest. It is true that some of the definitions are also imprecise, but not all of them. Also there are other sections of the act that are germane to the best interests. For instance the guidelines under section 2 stress the importance of timeliness in concluding cases. This is supported in section 4 which urges consideration of the damage to a child caused by lengthy delays. Lest one thinks that "timeliness" is also a vague term, the time lines are spelled out more exactly in the procedures. These procedural matters are not optional, but imperatives. A presentation hearing is summary and must be concluded quickly. A hearing of evidence must commence within 45 days and ten days clear notice must be given to the parents, with a statement of the order sought. Temporary orders cannot exceed three months on young children and the total of temporary orders cannot exceed one year.
ReplyDeleteA glance at the Bayne case shows that all these principles were ignored, or trampled underfoot. The director cared not one jot about following time lines. Never did they get a hearing within 45 days and never was due notice served. With the new Bayne child the presentation was protracted over two months. (atrocious) No proper notice was served and no evidence pertaining to that child was produced. It was all inference and all before the judge had even written a ruling on the siblings. Nobody gave a thought to the damage of the prolonged limbo. The judge found a small degree of risk on rather feeble grounds, but totally ignored the risk of attachment deficit disorder caused by the long delays in the case. Attachment deficit disorder is not junk psychology, but has been well researched. My understanding is that the psychologist who was to do the parental capacity assessment had no intention of addressing, or assessing the children for attachment deficit.
All this trampling of the best interests and ignoring the requirements of the act cannot take place without active collusion on the part of judges. All the judges on this case appeared to abandon the requirements of due process, protecting the rights of both parents and children and demanding accountablity of the director. They seemed totally ignorant of the rules of evidence and allowed their courtrooms to become a free-for-all for completely fact free evidence, scuttlebut and malicious unproven allegations. If judges abandon their duties, what protection is there for children against the aggressive children's ministry?
The link to contact your local MLA (Members of the Legislative Assembly) is:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/3-1-1.htm
Write, and make your voices heard.
This recent facebook post is interesting, a list of doners for the Ontario Children's Aid Society.
ReplyDeleteChild Protection donators list:
http://www.fixcas.com/social/shame.htm
Perhaps what would help deter the anonymous hoodlums who infest the child protection business is what happened in the Vancouver Riot, where individuals, thinking they were anonymous and who were doing damage to the city, were being sponsored by companies in their normal lives and were pictured in photos of the riot.
Once a sponsor saw their logo prominently displayed on the t-shirt of a looter, they instantly withdrew their sponsorship.
Perhaps that is one avenue of defense. Find those judges, psychologists, doctors and companies who support child removal and somehow show their true colors to everyone.
Accountability. It is coming soon to the child protection racket.