Tuesday, November 6, 2012


The pre-trial hearing date has been scheduled for November 23rd, in preparation for a trial for the trial scheduled for December 7th.

Ayn Van Dyk is ten years old and she was removed from her biological father’s custody and care in June 2011. Only now at the end of 2012, does her case come before a judge. All of this time MCFD has been able to defend its management of this case by using legislation that empowers it to care for the best interests of children and this case their procedure has been to withhold her family from her.

Please reflect on the cruelty of a system that permits a Ministry such as MCFD to take a child away from her parents, siblings and home and hold her for 18 months her case can be properly adjudicated for cause or legitimacy.

Inanely, MCFD earlier wanted to apply for a Continuing Custody Order at this upcoming Trail Date in December. That is, there might be no end in sight to this ordeal of injustice for this child and her family.

Now get this. MCFD should already have a Temporary Custody Order authorizing it to keep this child for this present extended period of time, but it has never been to court to acquire that Order.

Dealing with the reality of this legal status, the only promising note that has been sounded recently is that MCFD will not be seeking to upgrade its Temporary Custody Order (TCO) to a Permanent Custody Order (CC)). But if you think for a moment that humanity and benevolence are woven into the fabric of MCFD and its legal team, then consider this. MCFD intends at trial to ask for that TCO to commence as of the Judges gavel coming down on this case in December. It would be sheer lunacy if it were not in fact scandalously immoral. It has in fact already conducted this injustice to a child and her parents based on a 22-day Interim Order, which was legally exhausted long ago.

Derek Hoare, father of this child and primary caregiver, good man, good father will be seeking to demonstrate to the judge that the Ministry has erred in its judgment from the very start. It has taken the unnecessary step of removing the then nine year old girl who suffers from autism, and in accordance with the irrationality and impulse of that disorder, wandered from her family back yard in June 2011. MCFD has not conducted a due diligence appraisal of Derek’s parenting capacity or his character and reputation, or of the functionality of the family, or of the relationships between Derek and Ayn’s mother Aime who are a divorced couple but highly supportive of one another.

Now as the case nears, MCFD plays another hand, which according to other parents whose cases have been similarly mismanaged with immunity. Even though the trial is scheduled for the MCFD purpose of keeping the child away from Derek and Aime, MCFD has chosen this time to recently offered to set up a fresh round of mediation with Derek. The positive note is that this would appear to be with the intention of an eventual return. But there would be no guarantee or projected goal in which Derek could have confidence if he opted to agree. And now guess when MCFD suggested that Derek and MCFD could begin the mediation. Did you guess December 7th, the trial date? Then you are absolutely right. You must be familiar with the modus operandi of the administration of MCFD. One has to wonder whether Hon. Stephanie Cadieux, Minister of Children, is ever aware of the way in which her ministry handles people at the grassroots. Derek refused that December date and MCFD has not replied with an alternate date, even though Derek has indicated that he will make himself available for any time prior to the trial.

Derek’s opinion is that the information concerning his daughter’s case must come before the judicial system and that nothing must be allowed to interfere with this. Do you realize that this December date will be Derek’s first opportunity to actually speak to a judge since the apprehension of his child. This will be his first opportunity In 18 months to be heard in what we all should expect will be an impartial and objective setting.

Derek understands the value of effective legal representation but presently does not have that. He does not want to defer or delay the December trail date. I am concerned for Derek because he has chosen to represent himself. He is certainly a persuasive person, and can be articulate. He is however, unfamiliar with legalese and the subtle legalities that can be played specially upon a novice. He is unclear whether he can speak to the legitimacy of the original removal or whether the judge will insist that the case pertains only to the TCO application. He will be required to make demands that push back at the MCFD lawyer and he must demand to be heard concerning everything that has transpired in this abysmal treatment. He will have some wise counsel from fellow advocates who know the system. Most difficult of all it seems to me, he will need to discipline himself and to control himself from being so subjectively, emotionally affected by proceedings and things said by the MCFD lawyer, that he demonstrates instability. He needs to be on guard. That is, expect anything. Do not expect consideration and kindness from the opposition lawyer.  

 Derek and Aime want their daughter at home so very much. Ayn’s siblings, two brothers miss her desperately. This case must conclude with her return to the family.


  1. I have one piece of advice for you - get a lawyer! If your child means that much to you, you will do anything for them and that means getting her the best representation in court there is - and that does not include you! It's already November 8th and your trial is one month away - give your lawyer some time to review the materials. You do not want to go to court by yourself! Remember your priorities. Also note that it does not assist by having the public on your side, you will need to convince the judge that the child was not in need of protection. From what has been said, the child wandered off and the RCMP were called to help locate her. I can see why the ministry would jump all over that one. Just be prepared! Please, for your daughter's sake!

  2. Papa Inbc replies: Doesn't Amie still have a lawyer? There is no sense having two lawyers such as what I saw at the Presentation hearing. I was not impressed with Derek's lawyer (a women), I did not see Amie's lawyer (a man) speak, so I cannot form any opinion regarding that individual.

    As far as some of the details anonymous mentions, those are precisely the points Derek can personally address. 300 children per DAY go missing in Canada. If we talk on that point alone, should each and every one of these children be placed into highly expensive government care, wait 18 months for a chance to be heard as to why they should NOT be there, and have that care extended for a mere 90 days and start the process all over again?

    This is not about having a lawyer or not. I have represented myself in the court system with no prior experience, won some, lost some, so it can be done. If Derek has found the lawyer wanting in terms of following his direction and there is not a suitable replacement capable that will work legal aid, why not go it alone?

    Velvet Martin comments: My comment to "anonymous" would be: First of all, to lend credence to any statement, one ought to back it with a name. Second, anyone with experience in such an issue would know that achieving lawyer assistance is difficult to impossible. It is not a matter of choice, rather a symptom of the system in cases of child welfare where the majority of solicitors shy away from government challenges. Next, where an individual is well-versed in legislation, well-spoken and competent, it may be best to proceed self-represented... No one but the individual involved has a better grasp of the situation and the items which need to be brought to the forefront; as is the case with Derek. Lastly, the child wandered away from the foster placement (twice!) There is no rhyme or reason for removal, plain and simple. The child was taken and although there is no basis for keeping her, the ministry latches on rather than admit it has wronged... Another symptom of the system whereby innocent bystanders are harmed by authorities who prefer to save face than do what is ethical and right until there is no other choice because public outrage will result with exposure.

    1. In reply to Velvet Martin's remark to lend credence to any statement, one ought to back it with a name, I can only say that I am presently not willing to do that.

      I have too much at stake. In October, 2012, 15 months after my child was removed from my care, he ordered her to be returned to me under a supervision order for 6 months, he did not grant the ministry their 3 month temporary custody order that they were seeking. We are not out of the woods yet. Understand that the ministry doesn't like his decision and our legal system allows the ministry to appeal such orders. I am not willing to jeapordize my case nor my child's right to privacy, at least not yet.

      I did not get on the facebook bandwagon, blogs, etc. when my child was removed from my care. I did the next best thing and went over and above the ministry - the Ombudsperson, the Minister herself, the Representative for Children and Youth, my local MLA, etc. I did not get the results that I wanted. I get the point, something needs/must be done but what is the most effective way to accomplish the best interests of our children? Those who have the power to make change, are they willing to do it? Does it take a petition, do we need to amend our laws, do the social workers themselves need appropriate training/skills to do their jobs? I don't know.

      As for Papa Inbc says, 300 children per day go missing in Canada. Good point. Do you really think the judge is going to put much weight into that fact in this case? I highly doubt it. The fact is that Derek's child went missing and the ministry got involved. What can Derek do to get her back? BE SMART. Get proper legal representation. I don't care that you weren't impressed with Derek's lawyer, a lawyer knows the law, Derek doesn't. And, especially in child protection cases, you do not want to self-represent!

    2. Papa Inbc said, "When you have people taking exception to a certain "tone" of a writer's message and subsequently becomes blinded as to the good points that have been expressed, they end up working at cross-purposes. This sort of predictable human pattern of infighting is precisely what MCFD takes advantage of. MCFD and their service providers, their entire ecosystem, years of experience, specialized legal talent etc. presents a unified front; a formidable weapon parents face.

      Of COURSE Derek would benefit from a lawyer. Anonymous simply points out their singular experience and wishes to forcefully express any decision BUT to agree with this point of view is folly. That is what freedom of expression is all about, and should be applauded.

      The "report" of an MCFD withdrawal appears on a "Form B" in a paragraph or two written by "any" social worker (not a lawyer), and loosely summarizes the reasons for the removal, and the reason for the withdrawal (i.e. parent has completed courses, circumstances have changed that intervention is no longer required, the extension is no longer warranted, blah blah blah.) If it sounds like a joke, it's not. This is how things really work. Social workers can withdraw and avoid the expense of a trial, then re-remove some months later. A case can be lost, and children can be re-removed in as little as 15 minutes after a judgment and the cycle begins anew before a new judge.

    3. This is continued from Papa Inbc's remark above

      The judge has absolutely no say in pointing out that perhaps the children's best interests are not served by an immediate return simply because MCFD withdraws to avoid trial costs. MCFD can withdraw during trial proceedings as well, UNLESS you counter-sue and have that lawsuit heard at the same time. That is the only way to prevent MCFD from running away from a trial with their tail between their legs. All this does is it leaves MCFD to plot when next they can remove your child.

      I have represented myself against experienced council in FRA and CFCSA matters and have won on several occasions. If one falls into the threshold of making too much money to permit the hiring of a lawyer, but not enough to hire a "good" lawyer who won't quit and abandon you the second you run out of funds, choices are limited.

      With CFCSA matters, parents can use legal aid lawyers, (I think, regardless of income). In this situation, these lawyers are VERY limited in what support they can provide, as they are bound by a schedule of allowed costs for each stage of proceeding. I have heard from parents who have had outstanding success with their legal aid lawyers (Fred Nudel in Abbotsford comes to mind for Derek's region, as he succeeded in having Dianna Holden's two children returned at a Presentation Hearing after just 41 days of the removal, by putting an expert witness, a psychiatrist on the stand.) An active case in Victoria of a mom reporting excellent work by her legal aid lawyer, the interior where a legal aid lawyer fought hard to win his client's case. A man with 6 kids who represented himself and after 6 years in limbo succeeded in avoiding having a PCA forced on him, and succeeded in having all his children returned. The recent story of Mel Farrell who went public, and lost his young child in a CCO case was represented and is now doing an appeal. Fairchild TV in fear of MCFD, pulled their video posting of Mel's case.

      The most common problem I hear from parents is their lawyers do not communicate sufficiently so that their clients are comfortable with knowing what their options are. I experienced this personally with all but one lawyer (in Alberta, oddly enough who was well worth his $400/hr) of the dozen I talked to. In a lot of cases, parents simply need non-legal hand-holding that no amount of billing will compensate for.

      The point should be, once a decision is made, you work with what that entails and don't bather berating yourself for the decision AND you don't bother listening to less-informed others berating you for your choices and providing no useful alternatives. Derek has no lawyer, therefore the plan is to provide supports that compensate for this situation, and point out the advantages that exist to parents who choose to represent themselves.

      Yes, "changes to the system" are needed. In the meantime, there are strategies available to deal with the matters at hand according to the specific needs of each case.

      EVERY person with a live case, I always recommend they not post each waking moment of what they are doing and their opinions on their cases. However, for those that choose to bless the rest of us with their experience in real time AND provide their name, there is a benefit of hearing a voice in the crowd that has an answer to a problem that would not otherwise have been heard.
Wednesday at 4:40pm · Like

    4. Others have also written ...

      Ron Unruh Thanks for taking the time to answer with such a thorough account and treatment of the issues Papa Inbc
23 hours ago · Like · 1


Matthew Smith I hope next time people think before making wrongful assumptions (which I could tell was happening with this guy).
16 hours ago · Like · 2


Brenda Larson The fact of the matter is that each on of us, has to decide for our selves what is in our best interest to get our kids back. And I also notice that this anonomous doesn't seem to be any farther ahead than the rest of us with or without legal council. Each parent who is in the midst of a battle is the real person who can decide whether they want to rely on a lawyer or do it themselves. The legal aid lawyers as PAPA INBC pointed out for the most part have no interest in serving their client, only holding out their hand to collect the money that they make off these cases. They don't inform you of what your rights are and only want to "herd you in to their easily got ways". For most of us this is the first time around and only have our lawyer to help us through the maze. And if Derek feels competent then we should encourage him. he obviously doesn't feel that his lawyer is looking out for his best interest. None of these issues are taken lightly especially when you realize what is at stake. Like I said before we can learn the tricks of the trade, and nothing would ever get accomplished if we always went by how it should be done instead showing some initiative
13 hours ago · Like · 2


Yolanda Goodwin "get a lawyer" but... what if in doing so, you end up bankrupting yourself?

    5. It seems to me that some clarification needs to be made. I am not making a wrongful assumption. I am only suggesting that Derek is not an expert when it comes to the law and his interests are best served by being represented by a lawyer, no matter what the cost is. I thought he was fighting for the return of his daughter? Do you put a price tag on what that is worth?

      How can Papa inbc make an assumption that for the most part legal aid lawyers have no interest in serving their clients? That is false. He is pretty ignorant to what standards and rules ALL lawyers must adhere to! I don't care that Derek feels competent, he is not a lawyer, nor does he know the law. Ultimately, he is up against it and he is not well versed in what can/will transpire in front of that judge. I am only suggesting that he not take that risk when there are other alternatives such as being represented by competent counsel. Obviously, he is willing to take the risk of losing care of his child for good. This is the real alternative!

      As for Brenda Larson's comment, that I don't seem to be any further ahead than the rest of you with or without counsel, that is false. My child was returned to me, with excellent counsel I might add. What "tricks of the trade" are you talking about? Self-representation? You don't go to your next door neighbour to diagnose your condition - you see a doctor. The same rule applies to the courts - you get proper representation. Go on and show your initiative, but do not ever forget that the judge is the one who ultimately makes the decision regarding your child! And, good luck!

      To Yolanda Goodwin - do you put a price on the limit of what you are willing to spend on getting your child back? What is more important - bankruptcy/your child?

      Yes, the Form B is exactly what I am talking about. How many of them are filed with the courts in BC? Lots of these cases do not need to go to trial is the point that I am trying to make. Of course the ministry can re-remove - we have given them that authority. Don't do anything foolish to have your child re-removed. Be a good parent.

    6. Alright Anonymous,
      Speaking for my part, I am done with this strong of comments. I was happy to share with others your story because it helped to understand your earlier comment(s), but this latest rant is nothing more than bait, specially when you feel the need to redress each person who had something to say. So you are done here.

  3. I suggest looking at Ayn Van Dyk's Facebook Page ...https://www.facebook.com/groups/justiceforayn/

  4. Ray Ferris, a valuable writer and commenter on this blog site, has written something which he was unable to attach here, so I am placing it for him.

    "Good advice but too little too late. I advised Derek months ago how to force disclosure and how to instruct his lawyer. He has not answered my emails in months. The director should provide compelling evidence that Derek is an unfit parent in order to get an order. The judge will accept any hearsay, rumour, conjecture or opinion as evidence unless there is a skilled cross-examination. The judge will rule in favour of the director if he can possibly find a reason. Even if the evidence is weak he may well look for some obscure legal point to justify an order. The best interests of the child are the least of the concerns of the court and the director. Winning is everything. He must do this at all costs, or he would look very bad after all this time and the judge would not look much better."

  5. Although not necessarily the point of this article it's worth clarifying - MCFD does NOT set the court dates for trials. The Provincial Court of BC sets the trial dates. MCFD, just as the family is, is at the mercy of the judicial case manager.

    So when 18 months go by, as per your example, your best bet of whom to ask "why" and receive an in-depth answer would be the Provincial Court of BC.

    1. Yes, let's clarify that the ministry does have the authority and the power to return the child AT ANY TIME! They DO NOT have to wait for the scheduled court date. They just choose to drag their cases on in the hopes of getting the judge to take their side. Do take note that the legislation states that the ministry must provide a full written report to the court if they choose to return the child BEFORE the set court date. How many REPORTS to date do the courts have, I wonder? How many social workers have the qualifications to actually write a report, is the better question?

      Do not tell me that the MCFD is at the mercy of the judicial case manager! The MCFD powers are such that they are over and above the law and they are used as such in most cases.... We have given them that power. There needs to be some changes made!

  6. The scheduling clerk is indeed a powerful individual in this system.
    One would as how it is possible one clerk of a venue to produce a date just 4 months away for a 10-day MCFD trial upon the reaquest of a judge, but when a parent tries the same thing, say for a 5-day hearing, the waiting time triples or quadruples.

  7. I truly hope Derek, Aimee, Ayn & her 2 brothers are reunited as this family should have been months & months ago!

    I see no benefit from this bantering back & forth regarding lawyers. Any Canadian person who has had to deal with 'child protective services' & 'family courts' will acknowledge the corruption & unfairness in the family courts. What good can come out of 1 1/2yr wait minimum to possibly reunite a family who the government came in & removed a child without evidence of actual abuse? A child is only a child for so long...every month is a lifetime to a small child (even a teenager).

    Our Canadian government is absolutely out of control on sooo many levels already...to control the children is to control the future. Sad! Disgraceful! So much for being the land of the free!

    Best wishes & strength your way-Ayn & fam!



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