I still believe in happy endings.
I may be naïve. It wouldn’t be unusual. I was born in Canada
and I have lived in this country all of my life. We have a national expectation
that endings will happen happily. Customarily even sad stories have happy
endings in Canada. We acknowledge that people may have difficult beginnings or problematical
middle sections but we normally anticipate a compellingly happy ending.
One would think that a happy ending is not that difficult to
agree upon. How confusing can the definition for a happy ending be?
Whether an ending is happy or not is determined by where the
story ends. Novelists know this. For a story ending to be considered happy, almost
everything turns out for the best for the protagonist or heroine. Who then is
the protagonist in the Baynes versus MCFD case? That has been up for grabs for
the past four years.
I want Paul and Zabeth Bayne’s story ending to be happy. To affect
that happy ending the conclusion must involve the return of all four of their
biological children. Whether the Ministry agrees that such an ending is happy
for the protagonist remains to be seen. To date the Ministry has written a very
different script than I would have written. I want Kent’s,
Baden’s, Bethany’s
and Josiah’s stories to end well and happily too, and in my view that can only
be accomplished by permitting them to have their birth parents back. It appears
to me that the Ministry personnel have prioritized the happiness of these
children as though that is distinct from the happiness of the family that
includes their birth parents. That is because the Ministry has never given up the
opinion that the Baynes were in some way responsible for one child’s severe
injuries and that therefore all the children are at risk.
The Ministry is formulaic when it writes people’s stories.
In this case, the Ministry cannot see other options for a happy ending. It can
only project an ending whereby the children are not required to live
unsupervised with their biological parents. That would be deemed a happy ending
by the Ministry. It is anything but happy.
You heard me correctly. These children are not being
protected. What is being done to them must not be cataloged as child protection.
These children are being detained and deprived. Yes of course they have food and shelter and supervision and care and nurture. Their custody has been in dispute for four
long years. Their care order borders now upon victimization.
The treatment of these children is no longer legitimized by court orders and legalities.
It is agonizing. Unacceptable. The only happy ending for these six people is to
be allowed to live unfettered as a family. Then they will live happily ever
after.
Disney World versus Brothers Grimm fairy tales
ReplyDeleteIn Ministry care the kids are not being "protected" this is true. In fact, they are being held hostage and need to be ransomed and returned to their parents ASAP! They have been kidnapped!
ReplyDeleteHappy Endings?
ReplyDeleteThere can never be a truly happy ending to cases like that of the Bayne children. There can only be less tragic endings. The scars of this ordeal will last a lifetime. A lifetime for them and for all those who have struggled with them to try to right this terrible injustice. According to experts like Dr. John Bowlby, the children will bear emotional scars for the rest of their lives and are bound to suffer from attachment deficit disorder.
Is anyone in the blighted childrens ministry aware of anything about the needs of young children? About the need for stability security and continuity of care? Well they should know, because all they have to do is read their own act. The authors of the act evidently knew how critical those early years are, because in the guidelines they emphasised the importance of timeliness and continuity of care. They urged placement with kinfolk, wherever possible. They also said that temporary care must not exceed three months at a stretch for a total of one year. They knew how important the time lines are.
Would you like to know who is totally ignorant of the needs of young children? Who is totally ignorant of the importance of the guidelines? Well I will tell you. From the fact based evidence and from the recorded behaviours, I can assert that the Fraser director is totally ignorant of such things.The judge is ignorant not only of the guidelines of the act but of section 43 limiting him to three months orders. The social worker and the supervisor at Hope are totally ignorant of the damage of attachment deficit syndrome and of the requirements of the act.
Evidence based practice? Here is the evidence. The fact is that the Bayne children had been in limbo and in what in effect was temporary care for three years. Sure, you can quibble and say it was interim custody, or under adjournment. The emotional needs of the children do not distinguish betweeen such fine legal points. All they know is that they need stability and security and to bond with a primary care giver. Can Bruce McNeill and his staff understand that? Can Judge Crabtree understand that? Can the new director understand that? Can Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond understand it? The evidence from their the behaviour of the judge and the director clearly implies that they do not understand such things. The evidence is that all they understand is control, power and process. If this is not the case, why did they not all work to ensure that the case was concluded within the year? The judge voluntarily extended the limbo to four years and condoned the snatching of a newborn babe from his mother's breast.
A happy ending from me would be when the director, his staff and the judge could become capable of showing the same compassion, wisdom and love that have been shown by Doug Christie, Ron Unruh and all the many supporters in the Alliance for justice.
Fortunately, it would appear the return of the children is a forgone conclusion. Perhaps even by this September so they can start in the school selected by their parents.
ReplyDeleteOne happy ending I envision is to tie up those involved in years of litigation as a deterrent to future crimes against families. The children would be filing the lawsuit and win two million dollars each. Yes, we the public would pay for this, but this would put the fear of lawsuit into social workers contemplating wrongful removals.
Another happy ending might be the ending of federal subsidies to pay foster parents.
Perhaps others can submit their happy endings.
Well said, Ray Ferris, that's exactly my thought: even when (hopefully soon) these deprived kids will be returned to their deprived parents, no one can exchange 4 years of hell with 4 years of happiness! This story is just insane, continuous nightmare!
ReplyDelete