Kari Simpson and Terry O'Neill are blunt critics of the practices of the Ministry of Children and Family Development which Kari and Terry dub the Ministry of Destruction!
Last night the primary story was the interview with Derek Hoare, the committed father of three children, one of whom, his nine year old autistic daughter was removed by the MCFD fourteen days ago. I told his story here on Saturday June25th with the piece entitled ‘Derek Hoare and his Daughter Ayn.’
It was a dramatic juxtaposition of one heart-wrenching Ministry related family experience and the other family’s heartening news.
They did it again. Kari Simpson and Terry O'Neill aired an excellent livetalk show last night, inviting Derek Hoare to tell the story of his daughter Ayn’s recent brief disappearance, rescue by an integrated team of law enforcement officers, the poignant reunion of dad and daughter and then days later the arrival of two social workers at this door, and the subsequent removal of his daughter from his care and his home.
The Baynes have been informed that they may register their of-school-age children at the school of their choice. They have chosen to place them in the private school in which Zabeth herself was educated as a child and youth. The two boys will be measured and fitted with their uniforms in July. That will be a kick for them. MCFD have already bridged with the school to prepare the way for the Baynes. The school is very familiar with the Bayne family and will be highly supportive of the children’s integration and success as a family unit. The Baynes have numerous friends whose children attend this school and they too will provide strong moral and social support.
I commend the Ministry as well for arranging
a meeting of biological and foster parents so that the foster primary
caregivers for this past term can provide important detailed information
concerning the children’s daily routines, extra curricular activities, medical
appointments and professionals who have been working with the children. All of
those intimate areas of child care from which the Baynes have been removed for
such an extended period. I commend as well the foster family for their
willingness to assist in the transition of these children, a modification of
life for them which will have a ton of adjustment which will challenge their
young psyches. I write as if this is a done deal. It is far from that yet.
There are many paper, social, legal, and practical steps that must yet be
taken. So we will still wait as do the Baynes. But don’t you agree that this is
hopeful news?
I know that this is a Huge "Win" for the Baynes. To be able to have their children attend the school of THEIR choice...this is Sweet news! Keep it coming!
ReplyDeleteZabeth's good news has been the expected outcome since Crabtree delivered his Judgement (http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2011/00/p11_0072.htm ) March 2nd 2011.
ReplyDeleteThe apparent fast-tracking of the long overdue return of these children I wonder, could it be motivated by the fact the Baynes have appealed this Judge's order? That Josiah's removal sets up the potential for a repeat of this family's ordeal and a continuation of taxpayer expenses that MCFD no longer has the stomach for?
Perhaps MCFD has had enough of this and is crying "Uncle," but wishes to give the appearance that their "services" has again saved the day and protected four children.
Readers should make no mistake and ask the question why were these services that are capable of returning children within 6-months from start to finish, not supplied to this family immediately, rather than go through this ordeal?
It is ironic the very people who CAUSED the angst in the first place, near the end of the ordeal we are applauding their compassionate and caring nature as the "work with" the family in finally returning the children.
The cynicism from Kari Simpson and Terry O'Neal during the Roadkill Radio interview last night was unmistakable. I piped the internet feed into the living room TV so my family could watch the Roadkill interviews. The video was surprisingly watchable when expanded to fit a 55 inch flatscreen TV. The audio quality was impeccable.
Since I have personally experienced this same transitional process with the return of my children and have witnessed it with other parents as their children were returned, perhaps this is part of the Ministry formula for exiting on a happy note. To reduce the liklihood parents will sue them, as this agency so richly deserves.
I heard Zabeth say the first part of transition is that the children spend overnights at the home. This information has apparently been imparted to them before they have even received the results of the Parental Capacity Assessment by Dr. Bowden. Clearly the outcome of the report, before it has been delivered, has been communicated to the Baynes and the Ministry.
How wonderful to hear that with application of 'services' in just three or four months of Project Parent, the family has deemed cured and concerns by the MCFD that have been outstanding for yearly four years have been addressed.
The next major milestone is the production of the PCA report. When that happens, that would typically trigger a case conference to try and settle matters before setting a protection hearing date is set once again.
I would suspect that even before that happens, the children may be in their full time care.
The children could indeed be all home before they start school.
Because the way this is going, the Baynes may have the option, as I did, of refusing to sign a supervision order and asking the Ministry to withdraw (which they did in my case).
Derek played the recording of the social workers telling him they were removing his child and his very strong emotional reaction can be heard. It is heart breaking.
ReplyDeleteIt is so important for parents in this situation to have the presence of mind to record proceedings so they can later communicate to the world the horror that is the Ministry of "destruction" as Kari Simpson and Terry O'Neal so aptly label the MCFD.
The incomprehensible evil that this Ministry represents is exceedingly difficult to fully grasp for anyone who has not personally experienced their child being removed without an ounce of due process or application of commen sense beforehand.
Derek has not committed a crime, so therefore should not have his children removed. If the Ministry observes that a single parent like Derek needs help, the correct solution is to provide that help at a huge cost savings over removing the children and having taxpayers foot the bill.
It is that simple. MCFD WANTS to have a basis on which to receive funding, and like greedy foster parents, they minimize any direct expenditure on the child and pocket the rest.
These scum of the earth individuals who work for the Ministry know by training that removal is not in the best interests of the children, and they know the true reason, which is to maintain their employment.
Thankyou to this blog and RoadkillRadio.com for bringing this story public.
That is hopeful news! Awesome, so glad to hear it. I hope it happens even sooner than they think. Lord, grant the Baynes favour in the eyes of all involved.
ReplyDeleteRead through a very interesting interview with Dr. Patrick Barnes, one of the ten experts who provided their learned opinion on the Baynes behalf, and was, for all intents and purposes, ignored by Chief Justice Crabtree.
ReplyDeletehttp://medicalmisdiagnosisresearch.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/interview-with-dr-patrick-barnes/
Of course I am glad to think that the Bayne children will soon be returned home. Oh but what a total crock of ****!!
ReplyDeleteOnly last month the Baynes were such dangerous child abusers that they could not be left alone with a child for even one minute. Now they have been miraculously rehabilitated and can have them overnight. As there never was any proof that the Baynes ever harmed a child and the judge rejected the allegation of shaking, what behaviour was there to correct? According to the director it was the unwillingness to "work constructively with the ministry" whatever that is supposed to mean. In other words admit that you did it and that you will not do it again. The really horrible thing about this story is how the courts completely failed to protect these children from such prolonged separation and completely failed to protect the public from this enormous and unnecessary public expenditure. Just look at the waste of social worker time. Every court hearing was attended by several employees, who were paid to sit on their hands. They claim they are short staffed and overworked!! If this is how they waste their time, they will never have enough employees and this leads to my next topic.
Caseload size is meaningless, unless you know what is really going on. I will once more illustrate with a little story. I once assessed the caseloads of three different workers. One had a child welfare and family service caseload of thirty cases. The other two had caseloads of forty each and were generally thought to have heavier work loads. The first worker set clear goals for the work and when they had been accomplished, he closed the files and took on new cases. Over the course of a year he serviced a hundred cases. The other two workers set no clear goals and their activities were reactive and random. They seldom closed cases even when there had been no activity for months. Over the course of a year they only handled about forty-five to fifty cases. Not only that, their previous supervisor never reviewed cases and did not appear to have any skills in practising or teaching caseload management. Another time I was asked to review a caseload of forty cases on a worker who had left. I closed all but four cases, as there seemed to be no demand for work on the others.
You see there is a big difference between caseload size, demand for work and work done. It is the work done measurement that tells the real story. The demand for work is another one. There may be demand for work, but knowing how to do it is another matter. One of the great weaknesses of all the helping professions is the inability to distinguish process from outcome. People become enamoured with process and so enmeshed in it that they do not stand back and realise that there may be few measureable useful outcomes. The process has become the purpose. (Just look at Crabtree.)
In the same vein, social workers, supervisors and directors lack skills in setting and maintaining priorities. Maintaining priorities means allocating specific time for priority activities and maintaining them. In practice all sets of distractions interfere with priority activities and derail them. I can go on, but that is enough for today.
Here is a message from the ParentalRights.org group in the U.S. alerting subscribers that a law in Alabama permitting Grandparents to sue for the right to see their children against the wishes of the parents without justification (ie. without showing the parents are unfit to make the decision preventing access to Grandparents.)
ReplyDeleteWhat caught my eye further down the page is this phrase:
“The [U.S.] Constitution requires that a prior and independent finding of parental unfitness must be made before the court may proceed to the question of whether an order disturbing a parent’s ‘care, custody, and control’ of his or her child is in that child’s best interest."
Parental unfitness is a better test than Judge Crabtree's "10% threat of injury" reference.
The Bayne family have never been found to be unfit parents by a court or a court-recognized psychologist. Social workers do not have the skill to make such determination. Therefore, the MCFD decision to retain their children is a clear violation of the Bayne's rights as parents and citizens. Thus, they have not violated the rights of the children despite the existance of an injury to one of the children.
The government has userped the Baynes parenting responsibilities and the children's right to be appropriately parented.
http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={16F726F8-A3B7-4D4D-84B9-2F1028C0CBCD}
MCFD has always underestimated the power of parents' love. This Ministry is truly not only a horrific waste of taxpayers' money, but a gang of thugs who inflict the most painful suffering on both innocent parents and defenceless, vulnerable little children. They need to be exposed for what nasty, nasty people they are, and I'm glad to see that this is being done. I suspect that the exposure will grow exponentially, because once words gets out, there is no stopping it.
ReplyDeleteAnd good question from Ron Ferris (above) that is:
"Only last month the Baynes were such dangerous child abusers that they could not be left alone with a child for even one minute. Now they have been miraculously rehabilitated and can have them overnight. As there never was any proof that the Baynes ever harmed a child and the judge rejected the allegation of shaking, what behaviour was there to correct?"