JUDGE WALKER'S DECISION AGAINST THE MINISTRY OF CHILDREN MAKES THE NEWS.

News sources jumped on this story that Judge Paul Walker ruled that the Ministry failed to protect children from sexual abuse by their father, despite the report and testimony of their mother whom they chose not to believe. Judge Walker ruled in her favour. She then sued the Ministry and this past week, July 14, 2015 Judge Walker again ruled in her favour and has shamed Ministry personnel in his scathing denunciation of their work. Here are sources you can review.

Justice Walker's Scathing Judgement of MCFD's Abuse of Authority - CBC

Justice Paul Walker labelled the failure as 'egregious,’ negligent and a breach of duty ... Tuesday,

Judge slams B.C. child welfare officials - Van Sun, Ian Mulgrew

Justice Paul Walker issued a biting decision against MCFD in an horrendous case that the Sun revealed two years ago.

Justice Walker Sides with Mother against MCFD - CKNW AM980

NDP demands answers from the government about its Child Ministry's failure to protect children from an abusive father, refusing to believe their mother's allegation against him.

Father Molested His Children while they were under BC Care - Global News

Justice Paul Walker delivered a scathing ruling in favour of a mother who sued the province for refusing to investigate her kids' reports ...

This Father molested children under B.C.'s care: - Metro

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Walker ruled the father sexually abused his children and he says the province acted recklessly.

Social workers failed abused children - PressReader

Supreme Court Justice Paul Walker rules in favour of a mother who sued the province for refusing to investigate her children's reports.

BC failed to protect children sexually abused by father - CTV News 

Justice Walker's scathing ruling in favour of a mother who sued the province after the Children's Ministry failed to believe her allegations that the father was abusing the children.

BC Children's Ministry Allowed Father To Molest His Kids While in Care - Huffington Post

5 days ago - B.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Walker has delivered a scathing ruling in favour of a mother who sued the province for refusing to investigate her kids' reports ...

Watchdog has 'No Confidence' in B.C. Ministry's Ability to do Self-Assessment - Globe and Mail

Justice Paul Walker said in a written decision released Tuesday that the ministry showed “reckless disregard” when it falsely accused a mother of being mentally.

FAMILY AUTONOMY IN LIGHT OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS (part 2 of 3)

Are ‘human freedom’ and ‘human dignity,’ values that we want to preserve here in Canada? Do I hear a unanimous and audacious “YES!” Do we want to preserved them here in British Columbia?

If so, then why? I can venture an answer. Because among other benefits that family autonomy achieves for us in a free society, are diversity, variety, and multiplicity. Don’t tell me that these are not important to us, to you. Few of us are enchanted by sameness.

A BRITISH COLUMBIA CHILD WELFARE MYTH

The rights and best interests of children. 

In British Columbia, children have certain rights. They have a right to be made safe in their own homes or in alternative care. Right? When in care they have the following rights.
They have a right to continuity and stability of care. Right?
They have a right to be placed with relatives and to continuing kinship contact. Right?
Young children have a right to timely resolution of their cases. Right?
This means not being left long in damaging limbo. Right?
They have a right to privacy. Right?
They have a right to the protection of the courts from unwarranted removal. Right?
The ministry director has the responsibility to prove his case. Right?
Parents have a right to protect their own children. Right? Wrong on all counts because in practice they get none of these rights.

DEFENDING PARENTAL FREEDOM

We have academically agreed that both state and family have roles and bear responsibility. What is the appropriate role of family within a free and democratic society? What is the appropriate role of the government with respect to families? The questions are multi-faceted because of our numerous divisions of governance, local, federal and provincial, and our legal systems and law enforcement.

Tensions subsist within our government and the sectors that comprise it when it comes to converting theory into practice. The discussions surrounding these questions has become increasingly louder with each questionable and contested administration of government intervention into family affairs.

THE MINISTRY OF CHILDREN NEEDS WHAT DR. ORIEUX CAN TEACH

The B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development could learn from my dentist. I am serious about this statement. In fact, I suggest that the Hon. Mary McNeill, Minister of MCFD, confer with Dr. Kevin Orieux regarding the difficult challenges she faces in fulfilling her portfolio. I am confident he could help the Ministry not only meet its mandate, but also lessen stress and pressure for Ministry staff while simultaneously enhancing the Ministry’s reputation in the eyes of BC’s citizens.

Thumb created by MarkosWeb.com

Why could a dentist do that? Because he’s not just a dentist. He has written two books on human dynamics and corporate psychology, so when he isn’t running the Cloverdale Dental Clinic, he is a practicing corporate consultant whose expertise helps those in leadership to fulfill their vision and purpose, by empowering their people. The following is a quote from the website of Aararat Consulting, which states Dr. Orieux’s goal to: “create a supportive environment where the rallying cry is ‘Synergy’ whereby everyone works with a unified focus to serve the holistic needs of the customer first, their
co-workers second, the company third, and themselves fourth.”

BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD

The concept of the ‘best interests of the child’ is a universal theme expressed in a variety of international and Canadian instruments of law and practice. But is it anything more than a theme? Does it actually have content? I am not certain that it does. It is cited with conviction in child protection care proceedings and custody battles but why? Such cases are never decided on the basis of that theme but rather the specific facts of the case. The concept of “best interests” is a part of the rhetoric of child protection agencies.

The deficit is that the modifier “best’ is not defined, in fact perhaps indefinable. Even the touted United National Committee on the Rights of a Child has not taken a position to define the term with precision. Without a definition, “best interests” has no constraints, and then while the trumpeted term sounds politically and morally correct, it can lead to wrong impressions, inaccurate assessments and unjust decisions.

SHE IS JUST A LITTLE DISABLED GIRL, WHO WANTS TO LIVE LIFE

THE STORY OF AYN VAN DYK

As told by her father Derek Hoare

Part Eleven of Fifteen

SHE IS JUST A LITTLE DISABLED GIRL, 

WHO WANTS TO LIVE LIFE

October 27-28, 2011

All fifteen parts are Derek's own words written in 2011. He has been silent a long while now. This month of April marks the tenth month that Ayn has been in government custody. 
October 27

"Wow what a busy day; tons of details to sort out, Wyatt is ill, Lori Pynn just blew me away, and I just got back from grabbing Lou from the bus stop.... ahhh parenting :) Funny y'know because we immerse ourselves in our kids' lives and face one challenge after the next, each with their own set of tribulations and rewards. To have others look in on your life and take no time to understand where you have come from and where you are going on that journey that we call Family, and then based on those ignorant assumptions impose upon you what they perceive is "best" is an absolutely outlandish sense of justice. It is both scary and dismaying to think that I wasn't the first to go through this and will not be the last. It seems so critical that people wake up to this reality of a system so misguided it has rendered itself to be the very aggressor it was meant to protect us from."

LOGIC TELLS US MCFD HAS TO GO

(MCFD is the acronym for Ministry of Children and Family Development.)

Aristotle proposed three fundamental logical laws- the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. The law of identity means anything is the same as itself. Therefore, if A is a thing, then A is the same as itself. If MCFD is an agency that prioritizes the best interests of children then that’s what it is. The best interests of the child are synonymous with MCFD.

However, what about the law of non-contradiction? Nothing can possess contradictory characteristics. Therefore, the same thing cannot be both A and not A. A cat for example cannot be white and not white. Nor can MCFD be both consistently for children’s best interests and inconsistently for children’s best interests.

What about the law of the excluded middle? It means either A is true or not A is true. For example, either ‘it is raining’ is true or ‘it is not raining’ is true. There is no middle ground between the two. Either ‘MCFD is 100% Effective’ is true or ‘MCFD is not 100% Effective’ is true.

The points and stories and illustrations to which this blog has written for three years have dramatized and contended that contradictory characteristics of a consistently altruistic and effective ministry directed to deliver all that is in children’s best interests, exist without question and abound beyond imagination. Some choices and the decisions that some (not all) employees and supervisors and directors predictably construct (but which affect all) defy understanding and demand accountability that should categorically release social service people from their jobs. The choices to which I refer are those which too frequently violate human rights and conscience and decency.

I cannot see any logical grounds for maintaining that the Ministry of Children under its present mandate visa vis the Child, Family and Community Services Act should continue to exist.

 Ron's Twitter

JUSTICE IN ANY LANGUAGE - THIS IS NOT IT!

For some time a large team of international supporters of Ayn Van Dyk have been advocating for her release from the care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development because we believe that this autistic 10 year old should be at home with her father and her two brothers. We believe that her removal was unnecessary and reactive and uninformed. We believe that having separated her from the father she loves for six months now is not in her best interests. Some weeks ago we articulated our message in several languages (English, Chinese, Italian, French, Polish, German) and these are available and being broadcasted.  THIS IS NOT JUSTICE

BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD / 552

The concept of the ‘best interests of the child’ is a universal theme expressed in a variety of international and Canadian instruments of law and practice. But is it anything more than a theme? Does it actually have content? I am not certain that it does. It is cited with conviction in child protection care proceedings and custody battles but why? Such cases are never decided on the basis of that theme but rather the specific facts of the case. The concept of “best interests” is a part of the rhetoric of child protection agencies.

The deficit is that the modifier “best’ is not defined, in fact perhaps indefinable. Even the touted United National Committee on the Rights of a Child has not taken a position to define the term with precision. Without a definition, “best interests” has no constraints, and then while the trumpeted term sounds politically and morally correct, it can lead to wrong impressions, inaccurate assessments and unjust decisions.

WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD? / 525

The ‘interests of a child’, the very best interests of children should naturally be the concern of each one of us. Parents in particular are expected to care for their children according to this standard. In societies like ours, the collective, the people, citizens, have elected representatives to institutionalize this standard of care for children. When parents or other caregivers appear not to be acting in the best interests of a child, then government authorized social workers intervene.

Curiously, ‘the best interests of the child’ has become a virtual dogma within our courts and child protection systems, yet there is no standard definition of ‘best interests of the child.’ Notwithstanding, this phrase customarily refers to the court’s consideration of the kinds of orders, actions and services that will best serve a child, as well as taking into consideration the person(s) best suited to care for the child. The child’s fundamental safety and welfare is the principal concern.

TERMS OF JUSTICE / Part 335 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Given our Canadian Rights and Freedoms, a miscarriage of justice within our Canadian legal and social context is essentially the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime that he/she did not commit. Synonymous with miscarriage of justice is the term 'wrongful conviction' which refers to conviction reached in an unfair and disputed trial. Occasionally the biased term 'travesty of justice' is applied to an offensive and deliberate miscarriage of justice

There are avenues by which to quash or overturn a wrongful conviction but these are difficult to navigate and achieve. We all agree that the most grievous cases are wrongful convictions that are not overturned for many years or before the convicted but innocent person dies by execution or natural death while incarcerated.

But here we are discussing not a criminal but a civil matter, a child protection issue, where the suspicion card is played as strategically and effectively as the evidence card. The suspicion card is an incredible card because it permits the player to proceed directly to the goal without passing GO and yet collects thousands of dollars en route. That's what has happened to date. Now however, the court case required the player to present the suspicion so convincingly that suspicion should be regarded as equivalent to evidence. Circumstantial is to be regarded as actual. What a leap! What an hypothesis! What fertile ground for ---------MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

In the case of the Baynes what we have is not a conviction at all because there have been no legal criminal charges brought against the Baynes. So, no, they have not been wrongfully convicted. Yet a penalty has been imposed already, not only upon a mom and dad who are suspected by the Ministry of Children of harming their youngest child, but also upon the three children whom we all would concur are truly innocent. October 22^nd is quickly approaching, the date that marks the removal of the children in 2007. This family has been enduring this penalty, surviving somehow, for the past almost three years.

How Mss. Polak and Dutoit cannot be concerned, or troubled, perhaps appalled, intelligibly sickened by the injustice of this aspect of their Ministry operations I fail to understand. At least be attentive to it. Forget that this case has been before the court since January. There was ample time before the actual court date for a top level intervention, some kind of compassionate involvement to second-guess and inquire into the case handling by the Fraser Valley Region of the Provincial MCFD mandate.

Let's suppose that the Judge's ruling does not move in favour of the Baynes. The children remain in provincial foster care. Let's suppose it proceeds beyond that to the adoption of the children.

Years in care can have a substantial, irreversible effect on the maturing child becoming an adolescent and an adult. In a case such as the Baynes, a CCO (Continuing Care Order) with its potential for adopting the child to new adoptive parents, the child will never have cause to believe that one or more parent did not abuse her when she was an infant. Their reputations will never have been officially untarnished. She may want nothing to do with her birth parents when she is of age to find them. Her sibling brothers may or may not be adopted with her. The sibling relationship will be effectively severed. And the boys if they remain together may always wonder why the parents with whom they could not live for three years but who visited them faithfully during those three years dropped out of sight and didn't visit any longer. And Paul and Zabeth, fifteen and twenty years from now will be moving out of middle age with hearts wounded irreparably and with lives scarred deeply because the children who were their life, have never been a part of it. 

Judge Crabtree must decide against the Continuing Care Order, forget the Last Chance Order/Temporary Care Order, or any other option that credits the MCFD with any credibility whatsoever. Allow the children to return to their parents. It is the right thing to do. It is IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN!