METIS CHILD - JUDGE RULES TOMORROW SEPT 26 - RAY FERRIS SPEAKS OUT, AGAIN!

Ray Ferris has been invested in this case as most advocated spirits are. It’s the case of the Metis child whom MCFD wants to ship from a BC Metis foster parent home to a non-aboriginal home in Ontario because there are two siblings earlier sent there. He has written another piece and sent it to me today. 

(Photo:Mike McArthur/CBC)

"The Metis foster parents spent two days in court last week in Vancouver Supreme Court. Jack Hittrich, their lawyer applied for leave to approach the Supreme Court of Canada on a Charter of Rights application protecting the aboriginal heritage. Of course the MCF director is fighting that tooth and nail and has shown the customary nasty and vindictive behaviour that we have come to expect from the office. There is a publication ban on the case, so you may see nothing in the media. The judge expects to rule tomorrow, Monday Sept 26th. 

RAY FERRIS GIVES CREDIT TO DEREK HOARE

Ray Ferris commented further to Derek Hoare's account of the Case Conference held last Monday the 23rd of January 2012. It is an encouraging assessment of what seemed like such a disappointing outcome. Whereas thousands of supporters were hopeful that MCFD would propose at the very least a plan for a graduated return of Ayn Van Dyk to her father, instead a court date for trial was set for December 2012 and lasting until February 2013. Further, whereas some readers may have faulted Derek for minimizing the mediation and wanting the trial, Ferris looks at this differently and actually applauds Derek. Read his reasoning here. The point is the Ministry of Children has no substantive reason for doing what they are doing to this family, have no evidence of weight it can bring to trial, and would love nothing more than to wallow around in mediation talks that appear conciliatory but simply drag on indefinitely with no serious intention to deal fairly. It requires a judge's directive to the Ministry to make a restoration of parental custodial rights happen, and that's what occurred in the Paul and Zabeth Bayne case.

Here are Ray Ferris' comments.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND CP MEDIATION

Jenelle Schneider, Postmedia News

Ministry of Attorney General: The government website page for the Ministry of the Attorney General contains this page entitled Child Protection Mediation Program. In the post below I am quoting that page in its entirety and without comment from me. This is the mediation option of which the Attorney General’s Office wants you to be aware. I would like to hear what some of you who have been affected by MCFD's child protection practice think about this mediation theory and its delivery.
Attorney General

Child Protection Mediation Program

Sometimes parents or other people who are responsible for the care of a child disagree with child welfare workers in the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) or delegated Aboriginal child and family service agency (DAA) about a child’s safety and well-being. Child protection mediation is a collaborative way to reach agreement on the best plan for a child’s safety with the help of a specially trained, impartial person called a mediator.

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 54 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

A BARRELL FULL OF SAWDUST

Ray Ferris is himself a former social worker and now an outspoken advocate for reform of the MCFD as well as a critic of present procedure. He has not only carefully followed the injustices of the Bayne case and is assisting them in their case to recover their children, but he comments here to the Baynes on Tuesday’s Pre-Trial court proceedings. This is his note in its entirety and the bold lines are his. With Mr. Ferris' permission Zabeth forwarded this to every MLA, MP, the RCY office, Gordon Campbell, Attorney General, Mary Polak and the Prime Ministers office. They have received other mailings before as well.

"Thank you for the information on the court pretrial conference of Dec 8th.

I understand the following points. 1. The Ministry of Children and Family development, through counsel admits that there is no evidence at all of physical or emotional abuse to the boys. 2. The Ministry through counsel acknowledges that their whole case rests on the opinion of Dr. Colbourne that Bethany was shaken. 3.Thus it follows that the only relevant evidence is that which tests the validity of Dr. Colbourne's opinion.

We can also note that it is now approximately 18 months since contrary expert opinions were submitted to the Ministry for presentation to Dr. Colbourne and since they were discussing her reaction and the possibility of finding an independant expert. During that time the director has failed to produce a written response from Dr. Colbourne to the experts' reports and he has failed to produce the independant report so long under discussion.

You express perplexity that the director proposes to call so many witnesses who have no relevant evidence to give on the main contention that Bethany was shaken. You also cannot understand why they would not put on the main witness (Colborne) first. It would after all seem to be the obvious and responsible thing to put on their key witness at the start. Then if examination and cross-examination show that her evidence is not convincing, it might seem to the judge to be redundant to call other witnesses who really have no relevant evidence to give.

There is a very simple answer to this. The director's lawyer told him in January 2008 and again in July 2008 that the case was weak and unlikely to succeed with proper defense. The lawyer at that time advised the director to return the two boys as there was no evidence of risk. The director did not follow his lawyer's advice, nor did he rebut the advice. What seems to have happened is that the director was unable to make up his mind what to do and as the months slipped by in indecision his position became increasingly untenable. It became too late to return the boys without looking quite foolish. It would by this time be incongruous to ask for a temporary order. So the only way to save face was to go ahead and ask for a continuing care order. Knowing the case was weak, he hoped to bolster his slender evidence by throwing in a lot of witnesses as a show of force.

Put in the most simple and blunt terms, this case is no longer about child welfare, or the best interests of your children, but it is about saving the bureaucrats from embarrassment.

All the additional witnesses have no substantive evidence and they are a smokescreen to conceal the weakness of the case. Another way to put it would be that the barrel has been filled with sawdust to conceal the fact that only one small grain of opinion evidence is all that really lies there. This tactic is very costly. It is emotionally draining for you and your family, it prolongs the stay in care without good cause and extends the court time in such a way as to cost taxpayers like myself (and John Fitzsimmons and Andrew Robinson) a bundle.

I would imagine that after yesterday's hearing that Judge Crabtree has a very good idea what is going on and that is why he is keen to get another conference going between him and lawyers only."