IT NEVER STOPS

It never stops.

Cases of parents neglecting or abusing their children; cases of parents being accused of neglecting or abusing their children; cases of children being removed justifiably from misbehaving parents; cases of children being removed unnecessarily from responsible parents; cases of children not being held long enough to protect them and cases of children being held excessively long from their parents.

Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services, PART NINE of 9

Part Nine of

            Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services

               By Ray Ferris

Redfish Designs

Yesterday Ray continued with his 'Analyses of commonalities in cases and the subsequent probable conclusions illustrate systemic and non systemic problems and how they interact, and added Lawyers and Mediation to previous observations of prohibitive costs of legal action, MCFD adversarial culture, lack of training and evidentiary skills among social workers. There are two more today.

6. Access.

         The ministry seems to have no clear concept about what access is appropriate and what is not. The Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies does have guidelines and these are vastly different from what is practised in British Columbia. There seems to be no differentiation from case to case as to when close supervision of access is needed and when unsupervised access would seem more appropriate. The rationale appears to be that any protection action means that there is risk to a child and therefore there would be dire risk if unsupervised access were allowed. This is not rational. If the director is seeking a continuing care order, then this is a reasonable assumption and it might well be argued that access should not be allowed at all to parents who are so hopelessly unfit as to merit permanent loss of their children.

Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services, PART EIGHT of 9

Part Eight of Nine

            Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services

Redfish Designs

               By Ray Ferris

Ferris retired after a career that included significant years with the MCFD. He has written a book entitled 'The Art of Child Protection.' This is the first in a series of pieces Ray will write here. You can order Mr. Ferris' book entitled 'the Art of Child Protection' by contacting the author directly at rtferris@telus.net.

Yesterday Ray wrote that 'Analyses of commonalities in cases and the subsequent probable conclusions illustrate systemic and non systemic problems and how they interact, and cited the prohibitive costs for those who oppose ministry action;  an adversarial culture has developed as regional actions involve highest MCFD management in support; and lack of evidentiary skills among social workers.

4. Lawyers.

         Another thing that has developed since the enactment of the CF&CSA is that the use of lawyers has increased tremendously. Now that proper training in the act has become uncommon, the social workers rely on legal advice for every function. Interviews with clients have become so adversarial that they are often conducted with counsel present. This intimidates clients to the point where they feel they too must have an advocate present. It should be obvious that the legal profession and the courts have a very old tradition of being adversarial. It is also well known that the more adversarial the culture, the more financial benefit goes to lawyers, so they have little incentive to negotiate. The adversarial culture is so deeply ingrained into the legal profession and the judiciary that they seem unable to think in a different way. They just cannot help it. This culture now permeates the family court and processes have become as formal and adversarial as criminal court. The informality allowed in the act is soon forgotten.

Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services, PART SEVEN of 9

Part Seven of Nine

           Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services

               By Ray Ferris

Redfish Designs

 Ferris retired after a career that included significant years with the MCFD. He has written a book entitled 'The Art of Child Protection.' This is the first in a series of pieces Ray will write here. You can order Mr. Ferris' book entitled 'the Art of Child Protection' by contacting the author directly at rtferris@telus.net.

A historical perspective.

                  In the late nineteen seventies I was family court co-ordinator in the Victoria family court. In those days judges were meticulous in insisting on proper notification for all hearings, even if they were only interim hearings. The main judge also would not proceed unless he was satisfied that the parents had adequate legal representation and he would order the director to provide it if legal aid was not available. He would also order separate counsel for the children, when he felt it necessary. During a period of 18 months about 200 protection cases went through the court. No statutory time limits were exceeded. At the time, care could not exceed two years and by that time a child must be made a permanent ward, or returned home. Most cases were completed within one year and only four cases went to full contested hearings. Many permanent orders were not contested for the simple reason that the parents did not want their children, or had deserted them. In most cases an agreement was made with the parents through negotiation and discussion.

Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services, PART SIX of 9

Part Six of Nine

           Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services

               By Ray Ferris

Ferris retired after a career that included significant years with the MCFD. He has written a book entitled 'The Art of Child Protection.' This is the first in a series of pieces Ray will write here. You can order Mr. Ferris' book entitled 'the Art of Child Protection' by contacting the author directly at rtferris@telus.net.

 Case 4.

                  A woman with good job skills and a good work history left an abusive marriage with her two children and fled to her hometown. She requested help with accommodation and finances until she could get work and a place to stay. The social services refused to help her and threatened to report her for child neglect because she did not have a fixed abode. She then asked the child welfare services for help. She asked for a short period of voluntary care to enable her to establish herself. The child protection staff originally agreed, but did an abrupt reversal and apprehended her children. She had to fight two years in court to get back her children. A lawyer took on her case under legal aid, but the funds were totally inadequate to cover the case, because the children’s ministry seemed to be able to spend unlimited money for lawyers. Her lawyer was an experienced criminal lawyer, but the protection court was new to her. She eventually carried the case pro bono at enormous personal expense.

Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services, PART FIVE of 9

Part Five of Nine

Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services

Redfish Designs

               By Ray Ferris

Ferris retired after a career that included significant years with the MCFD. He has written a book entitled 'The Art of Child Protection.' This is the first in a series of pieces Ray will write here. You can order Mr. Ferris' book entitled 'the Art of Child Protection' by contacting the author directly at rtferris@telus.net.

How to Define the Problems

Case 3

Background.       

The G family was a blended one. Mr. G. had a daughter aged 17 and a son aged 14. Mrs. G, his second wife, had a daughter aged 15, who had recently come to live with her because her father could not handle her. The boy was grounded for a week for misbehaviour. He got angry and phoned the child abuse line claiming to be abused. A social worker suddenly arrived with a policeman. The parents were arrested and imprisoned. The next day the social workers removed all the children and placed them in care. The parents were charged and pleaded not guilty. The case was set down for hearing almost a year later. The parents hired a criminal lawyer, who demanded a large retainer. This left them no money for the protection case, so they had to get a legal aid lawyer.

Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services, PART FOUR of 9

Part Four of Nine

           Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services

Red Wall art by Redfish Designs

               By Ray Ferris

        Ferris retired after a career that included significant years with the MCFD. He has written a book entitled 'The Art of Child Protection.' This is the first in a series of pieces Ray will write here. You can order Mr. Ferris' book entitled 'the Art of Child Protection' by contacting the author directly at rtferris@telus.net.

How to Define the Problems

Serious examples.

Case 2.

                  This case was at first in two courts. It was in provincial court as a protection case and in Supreme Courts as a divorce case. Eventually the superior court judge Mr. Justice Paul Walker took over both actions. His reasons were made clear in his verdict. The case started as a custody dispute between the parents. The mother had actual custody, but the children were removed from her care because of allegations made by her husband. He was allowed unsupervised access, but the mother had only very restricted supervised access. When the Judge Walker took over the case, he realised that the director would make it into a lengthy hearing, so he gave the care of the children to the mother under an order of supervision. By this time the children had already been in care for nearly two years. The following are a number of facts from the case.

Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services, PART THREE of 9

Part Three of Nine

Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services

               By Ray Ferris

 

Red Wall art by Redfish Designs

           Ferris retired after a career that included significant years with the MCFD. He has written a book entitled 'The Art of Child Protection.' This is the first in a series of pieces Ray will write here. You can order Mr. Ferris' book entitled 'the Art of Child Protection' by contacting the author directly at rtferris@telus.net.

How to Define the Problems

Yesterday, Ray said, "In cases where there is compelling evidence that a continuing care order must be made, it is especially important to proceed through court with dispatch so that planning can go ahead without harmful delays."

Serious examples.

                  I am going to show some example of fairly recent cases to show how very badly everything can go wrong. I do this in order to analyse the process and to show both systemic and non-systemic failures. All these cases have some things in common.

Case 1.

Let us take the B. case heard before chief provincial courts judge Thomas Crabtree. Three small children were held in the limbo of interim custody and temporary care for nearly four years before being returned home. The following things transpired. They could only raise $60,000 for their defence and they had to sell their home to do it. When the money ran out, so did their lawyer. They could not find an experienced family court lawyer to take their case without a guarantee of $100,000. Their case would have been lost if they had not found a lawyer who acted virtually pro bono and had the Canadian Alliance for Justice not covered the many costs.  During the time the children were in care only infrequent contact with the parents was allowed. Any visiting was short and subject to the most stringent supervision. The children were moved several times from one foster home to another and they all suffered severe anxiety disorders after care ceased. The following facts in the case are noted.

1.     Evidence.

The crux of the case rested on one piece of expert opinion evidence. A doctor claimed that an injury to a newborn child was deliberate. Ten other medical experts disagreed and rendered the opinion unreliable. There was only one piece of factual evidence in the case and that was not disputed. This was the fact that the child sustained an injury. The argument was as to whether it was accidental or deliberate. Several other crown witnesses had no factual evidence, but could only offer opinion, conjecture and hearsay.

2.     Time lines.

The hearing lasted for 22days spread out over three years. An additional five days were taken by crown counsel to sum up his case. This was the same counsel who had advised the director to return the children nearly two years earlier as the case was not viable.

3.     Procedure.

The important time lines of the act were not followed. No written notice was ever served, as required by the act.

4.     The judge deliberated for four months and then made an order, which was beyond his powers, and he had to retract it and issue another order. He made a minimal protection finding and made a temporary order. By this time the children had been in interim custody for well over three years, so in effect the judge put the children into a form of temporary care for three and one half years. This exceeded the intention of the act three and one half times.

The judge left it up to a psychologist to be chosen by the director to determine the outcome of the case. He then relinquished the case to another judge. 

Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services, PART TWO of 9

Part two of Nine

 Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services

               By Ray Ferris

 Ferris retired after a career that included significant years with the MCFD. He has written a book entitled 'The Art of Child Protection.' This is the first in a series of pieces Ray will write here. You can order Mr. Ferris' book entitled 'the Art of Child Protection' by contacting the author directly at rtferris@telus.net.

How to define the problems.

                  Some simple tests can be made to define systemic and non-systemic problems. Consider this: - There have been a number of systemic changes over the years, but whichever system has been used, there have always been staff who could make the system work reasonably well and those who could not. This has been a reliable constant. We can infer from this that the most important factor has been the skills and commitment of the various staff. No system will work without a definable and teachable body of skills. These skills will take time to learn. They will be learned by a combination of theoretical instruction and supervised field practice with only manageable responsibilities. This training programme will take two or three years. It is most important that there is a high quality mentoring during that time. It should be noted that this training will not be provided by the various schools of social work. They do not teach the skills of child protection and they do not pretend to do so. This has been noted in both the Gove and Hughes reports.

Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services, PART ONE OF 9

           Resolving Systemic Problems in Child Protection Services

               By Ray Ferris: Ferris retired after a career that included significant years with the MCFD. He has written a book entitled 'The Art of Child Protection.' This is the first in a series of pieces Ray will write here. You can order Mr. Ferris' book entitled 'the Art of Child Protection' by contacting the author directly at rtferris@telus.net. 

RED WALL  by Redifish Designs

Part One of Nine

                 Introduction

In the 1960s the British government ordered a royal commission of inquiry into the functioning of the social services. It was known as the Seebohm Commission. The charge was to examine the systemic problems in the services and to make recommendations where there were systemic problems. In their final report the commissioners warned, that after hearing many witnesses, that they became aware of many serious problems that were not systemic and that these would not be remedied by systemic changes. There is an important lesson to be learned here because those who are responsible for directing child protection services are only comfortable with making systemic changes.

MOMMY’S HOUSE

MOMMY’S HOUSE

From the moment she wakes,

she’s preoccupied. Eagerly,

she readies herself to go.

Today is the day and tonight is the night,

she’ll be sleeping at Mommy’s house.

Pajamas, tooth brush, a child’s cosmetics,

fresh undies and a change of clothes,

She remembers well and she packs her own bag.

Today is the day and tonight is the night,

she’ll be sleeping at Mommy’s house.

She cannot contain her excitement.

Her eyes wide, bright, and her breakfast down,

She waits, bag beside her, then her ride arrives

because this is the day and tonight is the night,

she’ll be sleeping at Mommy’s house.

Captive princess, she’s chauffeured,

Arriving to be encircled in a mother’s love.

Quickly into her pajamas she changes,

Her own insurance that tonight is the night,

she’ll be sleeping at Mommy’s house.

A day filled with activities,

Fun things for a girl and her mom,

Baking cookies, watching videos, reading a story,

Normal things in an abnormal time,

And tonight she’s sleeping at Mommy’s house.

Written by Ron Unruh, March 2013

© Copyright BY RON UNRUH, marking an occasion when Ayn Van Dyk, an autistic child was allowed to stay overnight at her mother's house, for the first time in three years. At age eleven Ayn wandered from her family back yard and when found, the Ministry of Children seized the child to investigate parental capacity, taking an excessively long time to resolve this case. She is now permanently at home with mom.

THE BAYNE FAMILY - AN UPDATE 7 year later

You will remember that my GPS blog posted daily stories about Bethany Bayne who at seven weeks of age was removed from her parents, Zabeth and Paul, following a diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome in September 2007. Her removal was accompanied by the apprehensions of both boys as well. For four years, the Baynes sought to prove their innocence and to recover their family. Finally in August 2011 the family was reunited but not until a lengthy court case and a long wait for the judge's decision and several more months of parents jumping through hoops.

Bethany

Throughout the four years, Paul and Zabeth Bayne visited the children faithfully each week and retained and sustained a parental relationship particularly with the boys who were four and two when they were removed, and established a relationship with Bethany who had been too young to remember them. In 2011 Josiah was born and removed from his mother shortly after birth as a matter of protocol.  
They have been happily together since Aug 2011, with a great family life, living as though nothing had ever interfered with their family.
This is largely due to the strength of the parents, the grace of the LORD, the help of lawyer, the late Doug Christie, the counsel of advocate Ray Ferris, the blessing of countless supporters and advocates. 

Josiah