SHOULD GOVERNMENTS ENFORCE LIMITS ON HOW LONG CHILDREN CAN BE KEPT IN TEMPORARY CARE?

Should governments enforce limits on how long children can be kept in temporary care?

That’s the premier question following the Bayne story which was aired by Kathy Tomlinson last night on CBC’s Go Public broadcast. It was an article written by the CBC Community Team  at 4:36 PM January 3, 2012  and it received 10 comments.  Of course the question generates reader response. It begs for response. But what an undiscerning question. Why ask the question at all? It is precisely because enforcement is a given, a natural expectation, that we have laws and codified prescriptions. They are legislated for the purpose of compliance by the citizens of a society regardless of whether one is an employee of the government in power or one of its agencies or is a civilian dwelling in the region governed by that government. There are penalties for contravening laws and regulations. From what kind of understanding of citizenry and governance does such a question arise? What could possibly suggest an immunity for child protection social workers and their supervisors from absolute compliance with the legislated limitations dictated by the Child, Family and Community Services Act? If there are mitigating circumstances peculiar to a specific case then there is latitude afforded to MCFD to seek a court order that extends limitations for holding on to a child. I am prepared to say that even at the risk of overlooking severely unusual circumstances, there should categorically be no allowance for keeping a child in protective care for a time longer than that allowed by law or legislated act.

So, YES, governments should enforce limits on how long children can be kept in temporary care.

One commenter with a screen name of Jon rod, in answering this question left this remark on the CBC page. “The issue is not the length of time children are in temporary care but ensuring that it is safe to return them home. In this case, the head injury to the infant included internal bleeding, which is consistent with shaken baby syndrome. The ministry took action to protect the child, which is what it is supposed to do. The parents obviously chose to pursue a very adversarial course of action which was a major reason why the case took so long to resolve.”

I responded to that in this fashion.

“For Jon rod: Child protection (MCFD) did respond to a medical professional’s report of suspected abuse. The gravity and complexities of the girl’s injuries necessitated significant care. For some years the triad of symptoms has defaulted to a diagnosis of shaken baby which can only lead to one conclusion. A caregiver is at fault. Progress in mediating a solution with the parents was impeded by MCFD’s recurring insistence that the parents acknowledge harming their child. What you have deemed as adversarial action by the parents is an inaccurate label since they could not admit to something they maintained was untrue and therefore no course of action was possible to them other than appealing as widely as possible for someone to listen to their agony. Internal bleeding is consistent with shaken baby syndrome but not exclusively so, since other causations can account for this but MCFD was unwilling to pursue these possibilities. Sticking to one professional’s opinion, MCFD contravened timelines of their own provincially legislated ACT and yes the length of time that these children were in care became the issue because it was not temporary, and the Director had made application for permanent care still based on SBS. These parents were required to find their own experts to dispute the allegations resulting in Judge Thomas Crabtree, now Chief Justice of BC ruling that the child had not been shaken.”

I continue.

painting by Esther Palmer

"Any assessment of the Baynes’ reactions such as yours, offered four years after the presenting concern itself, can be misguided without a serious look back. It must not be forgotten that profound personal tragedy, horror and disbelief became the Baynes’ 24/7 companions in the early weeks of the drama back in 2007. In October 2007 when Paul and Zabeth Bayne’s three children were removed from their home and from their custody, their domestic world had crashed. Because of the nature of the medical diagnosis, ‘Shaken Baby,’ the RCMP were initially involved. Both Paul and Zabeth were arrested and held overnight. This was so unbearably traumatic for Zabeth that she required medical attention. They were released. The charges were dropped due to what RCMP called insufficient grounds. Gradually the Baynes grew their resolve to seek the return of their children, to assert their innocence, to provide reason for the Ministry to change its mind which would include accumulating evidence that the medical diagnosis was wrong. The Director Bruce McNeill, whose name appeared on the application for permanent custody of the children which propelled the case to court, never surrendered the commitment to a SBS diagnosis. That was a position that refused to engage with other medical opinions that disputed the triad of symptoms being explained exclusively by an SBS diagnosis. The Baynes proved themselves to be honourable in all of their dealings with the public, with the media, with the Ministry of Children’s personnel. I am pretty sure that the Baynes’ forthrightness, composure, stalwart conduct, commitment to preserve their reputation made bureaucrats livid. Ultimately goodness rises to the surface and it did in this case. I am convinced that it will for Derek Hoare and his wife Amie who want their daughter Ayn to be given back to them. This autistic child does not need to be away from her dad, does not benefit from this separation, and does not deserve the psychological and emotional anguish of being apart from her family. The MCFD is wrong, wrong, wrong. I have lived long enough to understand the circle the wagon defence is instinctive even for good people who have made a glaring mistake. There is denial, blame-casting and blind delays. That's an appalling reputation for one of our government departments to carry. It doesn't need to be this way if goodness rises.”