Tuesday, September 18, 2012


I am continuing the discussion Derek was having with the issues surrounding a cancellation of a visit by Ayn’s mom, Aime. He wrote publicly on September 5th to air his concerns with the way such a decision was made. This was not the first time that Derek has felt that their parental interests were met with discourtesy.

Derek was alarmed that when Ayn had her meltdown at the start of her first day back in school that day, an emotional/behavioural crisis which happened on the morning that her mother Aime was to enjoy a visit with Ayn in early afternoon, rather than suitably calming Ayn, settling her, taking time to encourage her to be ready for her mom’s visit in the afternoon, Derek conjectures that Ayn was dosed with a drug to bring her down. Aime was called at about 9:40 AM to inform her that the 1:00 PM visit was off.

Derek asserted in his rant that Ayn has rights even though she is autistic. He felt that she had been denied the right to see her mother by having been chemically subdued. The way he drove that point home was by surmising that if Ayn lived in a foreign country her rights may be abrogated but here in Canada, she does have rights. This treatment of a person like Ayn does not sit well here in this democracy underwritten with a Charter of Rights. So exacerbated was Derek that day that he surmised that MCFD usurps personal rights, regarding people such as Ayn as chattel, covering treatments of people with a mountain of duplicitous paperwork which compels determined parents to seek recourse within a court system that is jammed into tomorrow with a backlog of cases. And then he decried the lack of information that is made public so that the community impression is that an adequate system exists to effectively manage all such cases. It doesn’t, he hammered home.

Derek cited his own case as an example. Even though his child was removed from him on June 16, 2011, the first time he will have an opportunity to present his concerns to a judge will be in December 2012 and this court appearance is already scheduled as an extended court session projecting into February 2013 which anticipates customary delays and postponements. There looms the unkind possibility that having put this family through this, the Ministry may return Ayn just before the court date. This too is part of an observable system attested to by others who have been entrapped within a service designed to minister to children and families, ostensibly to protect them. Something is wrong don’t you think? Something is missing from the protocol.

1 comment:

  1. I myself am faced with the same difficult issues that Derek and his family are going through. We need to question the MCFD's authority to frustrate court orders. After the removal of my child, which I am currently opposing before the courts, the judge ordered that I will have access three times a week, 2 hours at a time, with my daughter. Since he made his order on September 14, 2011, up to and including July 26, 2012, I saw her a total of 28 times! MCFD did not like his order and so they changed it to only once a week for an hour and a half - they suspended my access from December 14, 2011 to January 25, 2012 altogether because the foster parents did not want me in their home! At my hearing, which, by the way, did not finish in 4 days - MCFD wasted 3 days in court - the judge made ANOTHER order wherein I was to see my daughter from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. The ministry complied with this Order for 4 weeks and then they have changed the times of His Honour's Order from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. My trial continuation isn't until October 26th. You may say that I am still getting access, however, my point is that it is not what the ministry thinks is fair or just, they need to COMPLY with court orders! I would encourage all of you to take a look at Judge Geoffrey Dufour's decision on CANLII (Saskatoon StarPhoenix "Judge Slams Social Services") in Saskatchewan wherein he requests the ministry to provide him with a full report as to why they did not allow access to occur as he had ordered. Ultimately, he ruled the return of the children to the mother. The ministry just sent out an e-mail to all social workers in Saskatchewan the importance of abiding by court orders. I would have had their jobs! Have we given the ministry powers over and above the law? Maybe if we can get enough support, plus a competent government who is actually willing to listen to the constituents and take their concerns seriously, maybe we can change the legislation to REALLY be in the best interests of the family, and get these decisions made in a TIMELY fashion as the legislation currently states....and stop jeopardizing the parent/child relationship! I hardly think that 15 months is acceptable to wait to be heard before the judge. But, what choice do you have as I haven't seen the ministry willing to return children without a judge's order....


I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise