JUSTICE IS A GARMENT

JUSTICE IS A GARMENT

Justice is a garment prepared for residents of this planet. It is woven from billions of threads, knit together into a strong and integrated fabric. Love is the thread and it has produced a fabric of integrity. Three year old SS’s justice garment is in tatters.

Injustice occurs when countless numbers of these threads are pulled from the garment. The wearer of the garment is then uncovered and vulnerable.

MCFD'S DELIBERATE EVASION OF APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE

MCFD'S DELIBERATE EVASION OF APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE

SS is the 3-year old Metis girl who lived with upstanding Metis foster parents in BC since she was 3 days old. These parents wanted to adopt her. MCFD had other plans and waited 3 years to enact them. In order to accomplish the removal of SS from her B.C. foster parents' home and send her to another foster home in Ontario, the Ministry of Children and Family Development purposely, one might say deliberately, took numerous questionable actions. You will read about them here. An unnamed friend has written the following points that I deem to be worth considering.

MCFD purposely disregarded every criterion for assessing a child’s best interests as specified in B.C. legislation and in the B.C. College of Social Workers Standards of Practice;

MCFD purposely disregarded the rights of the birth parents and their written preferences to which attention should be given as specified in B.C. legislation and in the B.C. College of Social Workers Standards of Practice;

MCFD purposely disregarded the written position of the B.C. Metis Federation that opposed the move;

MCFD purposely disregarded specialized opinions of medical and psychological professionals who advised against the move;

MCFD purposely disregarded the excellent record of care by the BC foster family, and the child’s superior development during her first three years with her foster family;

The MCFD fabricated charges against the foster parents, and created sham procedures by which to justify intolerable delays in finalizing a permanent placement for the child, by moving her from her psychological family in B.C. to another foster home with strangers in Ontario.

The MCFD procedure began as an adoption to the Ontario family until faced with the law forbidding this, and ultimately called placement with new foster parents;

MCFD in spite of the move being a fostering relationship have insisted that the child refer to the new foster parents as “mommy and daddy,” while insisting that her de facto psychological parents in B.C. be referred to only by their first names.

MCFD's confused bureaucratic manoeuvrings validated by B.C. Courts, gives the appearance that the Courts are complicit in this flawed and insulting treatment of a vulnerable child.

SS IS A METIS CHILD WHO IS IN A MESS

Hon. Stephanie Cadieux

Really? B.C.'s Children's Ministry (MCFD) says she cannot go. Who? Who is she? A  toddler only known as SS. She was not permitted to go to a Métis cultural event being held in her honour. Why would the Métis Federation hold an event to honour her? That's another story. Wow, if you think the first prohibition is an embarrassment for MCFD with respect to political or cultural correctness, then the rest of the story will strike you as an offence. I wish I could call it criminality but the Ministry is all-powerful.

I have told this before but here it is. Since birth SS has been raised by Métis foster parents who want to adopt her. MCFD doesn't have to explain itself but it does not wish to approve this application. Instead MCFD has informed the foster parents that they will remove SS from them, these culturally appropriate caregivers and ship her off to Ontario. Oh it's so stupid. You know I get weary of the Ministry's madness. But of course it can be defended by reason that she will join two siblings in the same Ontario family. The fuller story is that these are non Metis caregivers, non aboriginal. And furthermore, SS had never met nor known the two siblings. The Metis couple who desire to adopt her are the only mom and dad that SS has ever known. She has been raised with a toddler's awareness of Metis culture, sounds and practices, music and foods.

TIMES COLONIST STORY ABOUT THE METIS TODDLER

A FOLLOWUP opinion by Ray Ferris, my advocacy colleague, an experienced former Ministry of Children social worker and author of 'The Art of Child Protection."  Contact the author to order a copy of his book, rtferris@telus.net.

The Times Colonist story of the foster parents trying to adopt a child is a classic example of conflict between the different rights of children. Children’s rights are set out in the Child Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA). Children’s best interests are paramount and include the right to continuity of care and the right to kinship contact. Priority should be given to foster placement with relatives. The Act urges timely decision making for young children. Cultural preservation is urged, especially for people of aboriginal origin.

No individual right is paramount, but some rights become more important as time passes and conflicts can occur. It is then that a balance between rights must be sought, requiring good judgement. Unfortunately, good judgement seems to be a scarce commodity in this ministry.

METI FOSTER PARENTS CONTEST THE RELOCATION OF THEIR METIS FOSTER CHILD

CBC photo of child known as S.S.

This is a highly emotional custody battle. It's playing out in a B.C. Court. The B.C. Ministry of Children have decided to remove a happy Metis toddler from her Metis foster parents who reside on Vancouver Island and relocate her to Ontario to the non Metis couple who are raising the girl's siblings. This two year old has never met her siblings and her biological parents who wish to continue contact also reside on Vancouver Island. Her birth father said, “We love our daughter very, very much. And she needs to stay here. She needs to stay where her home is.” "She's so happy." “The foster parents are amazing. They’re wonderful people,” the birth father added. “I wish they were my own parents in some ways.” ---- Tomorrow an incisive response from Ray Ferris.

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.

TIM KOROL & SASK'S 'Arrogant' Child Welfare System / 536

CBC Photo: Tim Korol, Dep Min for 12 mo

On May 4, 2011 columnist Angela Hall’s story was printed in online and hard copy news sources all over the country. She wrote about Tim Korol, a former social services worker in the province of Saskatchewan. Granted he worked there for only one year but that was all that he could stomach. Korol is a former policeman who in the course of police duty saw a good many human unpleasantries yet he has said about his experience with social services in Sask., “I have been emotionally scarred by what’s going on in social services.”

He has recently released a 40-page report entitled, 'The Secret Shame.' He held a press conference and then he submitted his report to the provincial government. In that report Korol relates his concerns about the child welfare system in Canada. The title is apt. Good choice. Blogs such as this one have a limited readership. The secret shame of child welfare, specifically the stories that spin from child apprehensions and the unfortunate cases within the fostering program, are unknown to the general public because they are undisclosed.

YES, CRITICS CALL FOR CHANGES / 530

Sympathizers with the Baynes dominate the readership of this blog site. I accept that. Other readers, occasional and curious take a peek. Some with vested interest in the Ministry of Children browse as well. Be assured that the parents and advocates of child protection reform who comment here are not a small troublesome faction of uninformed complainers.

Critics exist across Canada and in enlightened countries around the world. Critics are calling for greater accountability for the child protection segment of child welfare. That is what must be understood and processed by responsible parties.

Please hear me say that I believe child protection agencies do serve a vital function to safeguard children. Note that I am saying just as emphatically that child protection departments overstep their mandate.

ATTORNEY GENERAL AND CP MEDIATION / 529

Hon. Barry Penner, Att Gen

The government website page for the Ministry of the Attorney General contains this very imported 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.What I want to know after you have read this, is, whether you are a social worker or a parent, has this worked for you?

"B.C. Home » Attorney General

Ministry of 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.
Mediators do not take sides, nor do they make decisions or recommendations. Instead, they encourage people to focus on common interests and work towards a mutually acceptable solution that is focused on the child’s needs.

Mediation is a process which brings together the parents, child welfare workers and others in a respectful way to talk about everyone’s interests and seek to understand each other through sharing feelings, ideas, concerns and potential solutions for the child.

The Ministry of Attorney General (MAG) and the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) established the Child Protection Mediation Program in October 1997. MAG and MCFD administer the program. MAG’s Child Protection Mediation Program (CPMP) contracts for mediation services with specially qualified private sector mediators.

THE SILENCE OF THE PARENTS / Part 407 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

While we have referenced this before on this blog, it bears a repeat reference. The opening paragraphs of the 2008 “Broken Promises” report by Pivot Legal Society say what many of us have been writing from personal experience as parents or close friends of families affected by MCFD. The paragraphs say:

“In 1996 the Child Family and Community Services Act (“CFCSA”) came into force, promising a new direction for child welfare in British Columbia. This forward thinking legislation promised a different style of service provision dedicated to supporting families to care for children in the home, improving services for Aboriginal families, using apprehension only as a last resort, and reunifying children as quickly as possible when temporary placement is necessary.

This report examines whether child protection practices are living up to the principles set out in the CFCSA – the foundation of B.C.’s child protection system. Our conclusion is that current child protection practices in B.C. violate the guiding and service delivery principles that are set out in law. We find that the system, despite legislative reform, internal reorganization and changing governments, is failing to follow its own mandate and keep its promise to keep B.C.’s children safe.

This report looks at the child welfare system from a number of perspectives, including those of service providers, social workers, and lawyers representing parents in child protection cases. However, the major focus of this report is the experiences of parents whose children are or have been involved with the child protection system. These voices have often been silenced in the debate surrounding child welfare reform. This report highlights the important and unique insights that these parents have into the strengths and weaknesses of B.C.’s current system. Their participation in this project is a testament to their commitment to helping improve the system for families.”

For access to the entire report, press this link.

http://www.pivotlegal.org/pdfs/BrokenPromises.pdf
'Broken Promises' is the research product of 

Pivot Legal Society
678 East Hastings Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6A 1R1

IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE US / Part 372 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Child Protection workers and administrators would like us all to understand what an almost impossible task they have. Well, impossible in the sense of making all citizens happy with the results of their work. They will tell us that a perfect balance is unachievable between not protecting children from abusive parents and not making unfounded accusations against innocent parents. Stated differently and more positively, it is difficult both to protect children and to correctly assess risk by parents. To which I and others will quickly declare, “Then become more proficient at the latter in a hurry.” What kind of nonsense is that anyway. CPS or MCFD should not even have the authority to do the one if they do not possess the skills to do the other upon which the first must be based. How stupid is this logic? “We can't always be right about whether there is a legitimate risk with these parents but we must protect the children at any cost so we are removing them anyway.” It is irresponsible for a government to condone and to empower an agency to be this frivolous with the lives of its citizens and with their human rights. We are not Hasbro, Nintendo or Mattel games to be played.

'Sunset Under Clouds' panorama of Vancouver BC by Thom Quine

When they are deciding whether a child should be removed from parental care, child protection workers and court judges must have a panoramic scope of inquiry. They must be able to see retrospectively as well as prospectively and I am concerned that we are not witnessing this kind of comprehensive welfare expertise. As in the case of the Baynes, the Ministry of Children would determine the future care of children based upon an uncertain historical understanding of whether the parents are truly guilty of harming one of their children or whether their conduct with their children  for these past three years  proves that they could never harm any of their children in the future. The thinking seems to be that the truth doesn't really matter when the safest possible social action is to remove the children from the parents about whom the Ministry is apprehensive.

There has been what I suppose is a predictable tendency that has occurred over several decades. In the past it may have been that many cases of parental abuse or neglect were overlooked or ignored or possibly unrecognized. Society and children were poorer for this unfortunate neglect. In recent years substantial modifications have occurred in social attitudes, knowledge, legislation, and policies regarding child abuse and neglect. Then health-care professionals, police, the courts and child welfare professionals began better to understand and to respond to child abuse and neglect. With increased numbers of intakes, almost inevitably it became known that misdiagnoses of parental abuse or neglect had occurred. There were relatively few such cases perhaps but nonetheless, each unfounded allegation had profound adverse effects on parents and children. It is simply not acceptable to conclude, well, that can't be helped. It's the cost of being safe.

Quite possibly a case like the Bayne case will prompt yet another independent inquiry into Child Protection in British Columbia and yield recommendations which can protect children while also perfecting trustworthy risk assessments and which can develop a new paradigm of child protection and workers who bump up the compassion quotient and reduce the antagonism.

FREEDOM TO SPEAK / Part 368 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Freedom of expression is a foundation of a functioning democracy. Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." Freedom of speech is a Canadian constitutional commitment that is predicated upon the belief that a free society is unable to function when there is coercive legal censorship motivated by those with power and an ideology that will not permit opposing viewpoints. Freedom of speech is maintained in Canada so that truth may be attained, people may be assured of self-fulfillment, people may participate as members of the society and as a means whereby both stability and change may be addressed.

Photo: (Soe Zeya Tun/Reuters)

The country of Myanmar is a member of the United Nations and is ruled by a military junta which has stifled free speech. Recently the international press has made much of the release on Saturday of 1991 Nobel Peace prize recipient pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. She is now 65 years of age. She has spent 15 of the past 21 years in detention without trial. Her latest period of house arrest spanned 7½ years. Such oppression by the military regime explains why governments of Australia, Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the United States still refer to the country as "Burma", refusing to recognize the validity of the name change imposed by the Junta.

Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex Features

Canada granted Aung San Suu Kyi honourary Canadian citizenship in 2007 and Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Saturday called her a Champion of Peace. That speaks to the peaceful means by which she has always advocated her push for democratic rule in Burma, much in the character of Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi. (Photo right: Aung San Suu Kyi's husband, the late Michael Aris and sons Alexander and Kim receiving Nobel Peace Prize on her behalf in 1991.) 

In Canada, there are limits to free speech and free press guarantees, as the Canadian Supreme Court is quite ready to point out. Yet those limits most certainly do not apply to speaking out about what is perceived to be injustice caused by a government agency and its employees. In British Columbia, numerous personal and media websites and blog sites have been chronicling stories about the way child welfare is conducted, particularly the administration of child protection. Some of those sites, like this one, are designed not merely to tell a story but to advocate for substantial and constructive changes in policy and practice that will ultimately result in benefits for Ministry of Children administrators and social workers as well as for children, parents and families. It is my position that the action steps for Ministry transformation in B.C. have not yet come close to the local administration of service delivery where all of the heart-breaking issues occur. Until Victoria begins to listen to the grassroots, to social workers and to parents, MCFD will fail to understand what must change.

A Basis for Discussion, Part 323, Sept 29 from this GPS site
CBC Story: Aung San Suu Kyi released
Video of Her Release: 
A Wonderful Collection of Personal Photos of her life with her late husband, British Academic Michael Aris 
Gallery of Her Life

I KNOW YOU CAN DO THIS/ Part 350 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

I know foster parents personally. Over a period of many years I have watched these foster parents that I know do a praiseworthy job of raising someone else's children. I know adoptive parents whose families have been comprised of children born to someone else yet who were integrated with such love that it was seamless. I applaud excellent foster parents and superior adoptive parents. They transform unfortunate life events into redemptive rescues and recoveries.

This blogsite is not designed to castigate or demean foster or adoptive parents and families.

I know competent social workers who dedicate themselves to effective responsible work. Knowing them has caused me to conclude that the dominant motivation for people who embark upon a career in social work is the unmistakable desire to help people with social needs. They desire and they receive training to provide a variety of resources to people with social difficulties within the target population in which they work. They have access to and they may collaborate with other social care organizations and government institutions as mediators and consultants.

We are all proud of our province

This blogsite is not designed to rebuke or humiliate social workers whether at the front line or in a supervisory role.

Listen, I could do this all day. I know as friends, doctors and lawyers and people in law enforcement and I am certain that almost everyone who enters these professions do so with laudable intentions. This blog is not designed to reprimand or offend any who spend their lives in these fields.

However, it may sometimes appear that this blog is merely a vehicle for disseminating vitriol to scar people employed in positions to which I have alluded above, because child protection activities at the heart of these daily written communications have bred such wrath and anguish, not in me personally, but in those for whom and about whom I write. Further, my thoughts provide opportunity for the wounded to respond and they do, often with words directed like a scatter gun at everyone in the fields related to their damaged lives. Everyone who is suspected of being responsible for disrupting and interfering and even ruining a family becomes a target for a verbal blast.

You see, I also know personally, people whose children should never have been held from their parents for as long a period as has been the case. I know parents who have not received from social workers a respect and compassion we would associate with their professions. I know parents who have been handled with disinterest, discourtesy and cruelty by healthcare and legal and law enforcement persons.

So you will have to excuse what appears to be an occasional outburst or an overstep of civility because YOU HAVE NOT BEEN LISTENING. Ms. Polak, Ms. Du Toit, Ms. Turpel-Lafond, Mr. Campbell, Mr. de Jong, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Fitzimmons, Mr. Jensen, Mr. Gulbot, Mr. Humeny, there are parents and children who are not being heard. Attention must be paid to a countless number of parents who are powerless to recover their families because an entire ministry and legal system is charged with a mandate that can be deemed counter productive to the objectives of these disenfranchised parents. In so many of these cases, the best interests of the children is being misunderstood and misinterpreted. I am begging you to begin to listen to their heart cries. This province needs to become proactive, a trail blazer in reform of child protection policy and practice. I know that you can do this.

REMOVE THE SECRECY / Part 324/ For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Don't rule on a family by rolling dice

Given the many voices of complaint through the years it is foolish and irresponsible to assume that there have been no miscarriages of justice within the family court system of British Columbia and the Ministry of Children and Family Development.  Professionals must make horrifically tricky judgments. And they are not always right. Even good and well intentioned people make mistakes. Miscarriages of justice must be addressed honestly if these systems are not to lose further public confidence. It is almost unbearable to observe the confusion and powerlessness of parents who are dumped into an arena of case workers, foster parents, supervisors, summonses, counsellors, reports and a turnover of costly lawyers who assist minimally before hurrying to the next case. Who will give attention to these miscarriages and when will it happen? A few of you were calling yesterday for a mass rally, a march to at least gain the attention of the media, the public and hopefully MLA's and Ministry of Children leadership. 

When reviewing the official and independent inquiries into the MCFD over many years and many journal studies and news stories, child protection looks like a social services disaster. Few of us have any idea what it must be like for parents in cases of alleged abuse, to be viewed by professionals as being guilty until you can prove your innocence; to be under such close scrutiny that you are virtually in the world of big brother. I ask you again to look at Robert Harrison's update yesterday on this blog.

B.C. added five new judges recently to assist the backlog of cases in provincial courts. Each week our courts endeavor to produce judgments consistent with strands of frayed information and imperfect relationships. Information has typically been concealed. Parents whose children have been taken away are fearful to speak about their cases lest they reduce their possibility of regaining custody. Even parents who have their children returned are reluctant to identify their comments publicly. Furthermore, media coverage of cases is forbidden. There has been an almost complete censorship of the world of “child protection” and that is why Judge Crabtree's ruling at the start of the Bayne hearing was significant. While the MCFD counsel applied for a news ban, that was denied. So why is not the media on top of this one. It's not bad enough news. It doesn't sell regularly. Whether the eventual ruling goes against either the Baynes or the Ministry will certainly be newsworthy - briefly. Such hearings as the one in which Paul and Zabeth Bayne have been involved are usually in camera, and these family court hearings generally have a lower standard of proof than criminal courts because they cannot send people to jail. But they can take children away and as parents will tell us, the loss of a child is a kind of life sentence. As to a lower standard of proof, try probability as a justification for the destruction of a family. What kind of society is it that will permit a government ministry and a judicial system to operate on the basis of probability rather than evidence? "We cannot prove that they did it, but they probably did." "We cannot prove they are a risk, but they probably are."

Permitting journalists into family courts even with some restricted reporting direction could keep both sides more honest. It might provide the innocent party a chance to cry for help and be heard. As it is, the media must be silent. What should occur is that the media can speak to what happened a decade ago but also to what is happening today, Thursday at Chilliwack Court when Ministry lawyer Finn Jensen completes his summation aimed at persuading the judge not to return the three Bayne children to their parents, ever.