Sunday, March 11, 2018

Episode 7 of 7: SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS TO B.C.'S CHILD PROTECTION

Episode 7 of 7: SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS TO B.C.'S CHILD PROTECTION
Today, Solutions to the Problems … that's right, after four episodes reviewing current problems in the B.C. Child Protection programme, Ray Ferris is providing solutions. Remember, that the ten-page document from which all of this information has been taken has been given to some members of the B.C. Legislative Assembly.
The segments for this blog are prepared with Ray's permission. Ray has written many articles on this blog for the past decade.  Ray Ferris retired after a career that included significant years with the MCFD. He has written a book entitled 'The Art of Child Protection.' You can order Mr. Ferris' book entitled 'the Art of Child Protection' by contacting the author directly at rtferris@telus.net.

Written by Ray Ferris.
Some General Information. 
            After retirement I first started doing advocacy when one of my former foster parents asked me for help. This resulted in my becoming a voluntary consultant to the Victoria foster parents association. The Association reported that only 2% of foster home closure appeals were successful. I did not believe that the children's ministry got it right 98% of the time, nor did anyone else. I also became knowledgeable about the epidemic of false accusations from recovered memory counselling. This practice did a lot of damage before it was finally debunked. An offshoot was the counselling cult of satanic ritual abuse accusations. The FBI investigated 300 cases and found not a shred of evidence, and yet many social workers believed in it.  
            My advice on child protection issues really stepped up after I got involved in the Bayne case. A blog was opened to help raise funds for the defence and court costs. I often wrote on it and I had many people asking me for advice. There was a heavy readership from all over Canada and the USA and on the day the judgement came out there were over 12,000 hits. I still get people contacting me on line. I had 10 new cases in 2015. I have been writing much less frequently over the last few years and requests have tapered off.
            I soon began to discern definite patterns arising. To start with it seemed to me that in two cases out of three the director's evidence was usually quite weak and did not merit the adversarial treatment that was common. In the other cases there was certainly a need for protection in various degrees. However, my approach was very basic and the same as when I did protection work. I tried to guarantee due process in court. I thought that if the Act were to be followed and the rules of evidence were followed that there should be a just outcome. So what was the problem? I found that seldom was the Act being followed and even when there was legal representation there seemed to be great laxity in following due process. Some lawyers did not like to take instructions and got confused between giving advice and giving instructions. So I found that most of the time I was just giving legal advice. When asked how to pick a lawyer I suggested that they should ask them if the have read the Act and how recently and what are the salient points I need to know. Eventually I was giving them an advice letter telling them in detail how to instruct counsel to insist on notification and disclosure and how to keep reminding the court of the mandatory clauses of the Act.  I found that if we got on to the case early, we could usually get results, but if it had gone on too long there was too much ego entrenched. Defence counsels did not like being told that they had not done the job properly. The parents in most cases had no difficulty studying and understanding the sections of the Act I had them read.


If you are reading this post and have not seen previous posts, I encourage you to return to the start of this recent series.
Thank you for reading ... 

4 comments:

  1. Great ! Very nice blog and excellent things exist in your blog content. thanks for sharing..
    GPS Kids Watch
    kids gps watches

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you very much Ray and Ron for your help getting my child home. Without your assistance, I never would have gotten my child back. My child was finally returned because the MCFD refused to disclose their evidence against me. I am a long time successful child and family advocate at my children's schools, in the district and at the provincial level, including my community. I have been a volunteer coach for two sports clubs over many years for both my children. The social worker had no intention of returning my child to my care. I was deemed uncooperative throughout. The MCFD`s actions have traumatized my child and my entire family and who no longer have our respect.

    I was not served properly. Within weeks of my child being removed, I was told by another family the social worker was encouraging them to hire a lawyer to adopt my child. The social worker lied saying she did not know of my child`s wishes to return to a school despite being told by 3 different adults. I was deemed uncooperative by the social worker despite seeing their counselor every week for weeks and a psychologist both of which asked me what was wrong and why they had to see me and I was unable to answer. I was forced to sign documents after the fact in order to be cooperative and upon the advice of my lawyer. I requested FOI document from the counselling sessions for my children and the social worker told me my request made her feel threatened; my lawyer advised me to leave them alone so I would be cooperative. The social worker promised things in court and then refused to do them after court. As well....

    The MCFD willfully exposed my child to all kinds of risk. The MCFD put my child into two different homes without completing the full home assessment at each ... this was reported in court documents. My child says social workers only saw my child about 4 times over one year. They denied paying for an activity my child has done every year for 11 years despite promises. They deemed my child's cultural identity not important. They also said my child didn't have severe asthma and anaphylaxis (despite notations in previous school records) because the current school said my child only had the flu. They refused to allow my child's paediatric allergist to reassess my child despite missing a lot of school for respiratory issues shortly before my child was removed from my care, and medical documentation (provided to the social worker) from a paediatric allergist and a paediatric pulmonologist, both very familiar with my child's medical history and unique asthmatic symptoms. They withheld report cards, switched family doctors, and prevented the school from speaking with me regarding my child.

    When I complained my family had to promise to supervise me 24x7 while in the presence of my child. I was not allowed to stay at my family's home or in the same community to visit with my child who was 12 hours drive away. My older adult child never saw their younger sibling over the year my child was in the MCFD's care due to the restrictive measures placed on our family and work requirements. Even family friends were prevented from seeing my child.

    ReplyDelete
  3. thanks for this letter Soccer Mom. This is a Christmas gift to Ray and me. I know Ray will be pleased as I am to know that your child is ‘home’ with you. Merry Christmas to you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for sharing this post such a useful information......,
    Kids Gps Watch
    GPS Kids Watch

    ReplyDelete

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