Over some time a transformation of democratic freedom has occurred so that enforced compliance to bureaucratic rules and codes is the obligation.
We should be deeply concerned with the actions of B.C.’s child protection services and other similar international agencies about which we read. Citizens need to be heard. They need a voice. There must be a forum, an audience that will listen to the heart cries of thousands of British Columbia’s population. Perhaps the citizens themselves must organize a conference to which news media are particularly invited. And if we move in this direction, we should know what brought us here.
Our constitution defines Canada as a democracy with power in the hands of the whole people. In theory and in most practical ways private disputes are settled from the basis that everyone is equal before the law. When conferring public responsibility upon one person it is not class membership but personal ability that is decisive. Therefore in political and daily life Canadian life is free, open and tolerant. We respect people who are in positions of authority and we obey law.
Over some time a transformation of democratic freedom has occurred so that enforced compliance to bureaucratic rules and codes is the obligation. In hand with this there has been an observable evolution of society into a welfare state and the expectation by citizens is that government will solve most or all social problems. To accomplish this, trillions of dollars must be spent to effect necessary remedies to social ills. Yet social problems to not diminish but escalate, as though society is becoming sicker and that may demand the conclusion that the therapeutic state is incompetent.
When the government is deemed the therapeutic manager of social ills then it must also decide which problems should be addressed with the limited resources of our tax-funded budgets. Bureaucracies determine what problems require curing and what remedies should be used. Prudently, our government has concluded that vulnerable children must be protected. Recklessly, our government has authored a policy that invites abuse from ill-advised protectors, and authorized a protection practice which has virtual performance immunity on the field. Consequently, we have received the delivery of services too often spotted with hasty decisions, inadequate assessment, mistaken conclusions, and unjust treatment of BC residents and citizens. We need a forum by which to say to our government through the media, "we are not going to take it any more."
You know Ron; Derek has been saying one or two things which puzzle me. That is one of the reasons that I wondered who his lawyer is. If he has one, is it a legal aid hack, or a well-qualified family lawyer. One of the first things that I would ask a lawyer is if he had actually read the CF&CSA. I am sure that many do not bother. After all Judge Crabtree did not seem to bother to read the act when he made that six months order that the law does not allow.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that Derek said was that the act does not allow him to speak to the court or question the ministry. I have combed the act and nowhere does it say any such thing. The judge has wide powers of discretion as to what he will hear and not hear. For instance nowhere in the act does it state that he has to accept a presentation report as a given.
I suggest all interested parties read sections 66, 67 and 68 of the act. This spells out that the hearing is civil in nature and may be as informal as the judge may allow. If the judge had a mind to he could simply invite Derek in an informal way give his version of events. The act does not restrict the judges powers of informality and can apply to a presentation hearing. Section 68 allows for a certain amount of hearsay evidence and this is the section which allows the ministry to run its cases on only allegation, hearsay and rumour. There is no requirement to present factual evidence. This is of course meant to be a two-way street. If the social worker can get away with presenting documents and opinion evidence, then the parent should be able to do the same. Just try it. The director will fight you all the way and the judge will disallow anything the social worker asks him to.
Do you remember my blog saying the law is an ass? If the law says that it is alright to keep children in limbo for four years, then the law is an ass. If it says that sir, the law is a bachelor. ( Dickens) Then I went on to explore the law and nowhere did the law say that, so who is the donkey? There are lots of them. The social worker, supervisor, director and last but not least the judge.
I am going to email you a piece on parental capacity assessment for the blog.
There are cases in the making out there right now. Very few lawyers have read the CFCSA. It is a rubber stamp court.
ReplyDeleteI have always thought there should be an ombudsman of some sort that Child Welfare is accountable to, that parents who have been wrongly accused and mistreated can bring their cases to.Child Welfare has too much unchecked power and needs someone to keep them in check.
ReplyDelete