BC CHILD PROTECTION PROCESS

THE CHILD PROTECTION PROCESS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

When a report is sent to Child Protection services in B.C., concerning the safety of your child, there is a flow of decisions and actions that can be charted. To describe it to you, I begin with the Investigation. That is an investigation by the Ministry of Children, and specifically a social worker who begins a file for you and/or your child and is given responsibility to examine the report information.

The Investigation may ultimately lead the social worker to one of two decisions, Protection is Required or The Case is Closed.

If the conclusion is Protection is Required, then the question Removal Required? will have either a No or Yes answer.

If the social worker concludes No (removal not required), there are two (2) possibilities.

            Parent(s) Agree with the Director to Supervision

                        Or

            The Director Requests a Supervision Order 

        If the social worker concludes Yes, (removal is required) or if parents do not agree with Director to Supervision, then it proceeds to a Presentation Hearing, where the MCFD makes its case before the Court.

            One of Four (4) Court Rulings is made,

                                            i.    No Supervision Order is granted and Child remains with Parent(s)

                                          ii.    Interim Supervision Order granted, Child remains with Parent(s) with provisos

                                         iii.    Interim Supervision Order but Child is Placed with Someone Else

                                         iv.    Interim Custody Order and Child is Placed in Foster Care

 

            Each of the last three (3) rulings may lead to a Protection Hearing, and MCFD makes its case before the Court. 

            The immediate First Step is a Case Conference when MCFD meets with parents. If no agreement results, then it proceeds to the Protection Hearing.

            One of Four (4) Court Rulings is made,

                                            i.    Temporary Supervision Order is granted and Child remains with Parent(s)

                                          ii.    Temporary Supervision Order, Child with Someone Else

                                         iii.    Temporary Custody Order, Child in Foster Care

                                         iv.    Continuing Custody Order, Child in Foster Care

A copy of this in Chart Form is available at http://www.crownpub.bc.ca 

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.

DEREK HOARE TALKING ABOUT HIS CASE CONFERENCE – Part 2 of 2

In responding to Derek Hoare's synopsis of his Monday Case Conference, entitled ‘Derek’s Report about Case Conference,’ which is worth reading and was sent to his Facebook friends, I wrote a number of questions. Among them were the following. Derek's response follows each lead question.

I wrote, "The trial dates are indeed distant. Annoyance at MCFD over this is misdirected. Neither the Ministry nor its lawyers control the calendar. The court clerk’s calendar is full of prior scheduled cases. Our B.C. Court system is jam-packed with family related cases. The scheduling of a Hoare/Van Dyk case is dependent upon the availability of a judge, of the Ministry lawyer, of Derek’s lawyer, and of court room facilities. All of these individual schedules must find a harmonized meeting place."

Derek said, “Yes that is correct Ron it was not the ministry who sets the trial date, it is based on the availability of all parties (courts, MCFD, Lawyers, Amie and myself). In this case I believe those are the next available court dates.”

CASE CONFERENCING (What a Parent Needs to Know)

CASE CONFERENCING (What a Parent Needs to Know)  PART TWO
By Ray Ferris

Ray Ferris is a retired employee and administrator with the Ministry and is now a diligent critic of substandard case work and oversight and a proponent of change to Child Welfare and in particular Child Protection. He has written this two-part comment that speaks to Case Conferences and the article written on the same subject by PAPA INBC. On January 20, 2011 the contributor known as PAPA INBC or People Assisting Parents Association, wrote advice for parents who find themselves in Case Conference with Ministry of Children representatives. His piece was called A CASE CONFERENCE (What a Parent Needs to Know). Papa has also written two lengthy additional pieces of advice as comments on yesterday's GPS blog post by Ray Ferris.

Here is the final installment of this two-part post.

"Now I will try to give you one or two useful hints. You do not need to understand the whole act, but you should know certain sections that can be helpful to you and above all make sure that your lawyer reads those sections. You should read and memorize as much as possible of the following sections. Section 2, subsections 2,3 and 4. Guiding principles, service delivery principles and the best interests of the child. You can see right away that the ministry and the court are paying no attention to these sections and your lawyer should constantly be reminding the court of these sections.

CASE CONFERENCING (What a Parent Needs to Know) PART ONE

On January 20, 2011 the contributor known as PAPA INBC or People Assisting Parents Association, wrote some advice for parents who occasionally find themselves called to a meeting with Ministry of Children representatives - a meeting known as a Case Conference. His piece was called A CASE CONFERENCE (What a Parent Needs to Know). Papa prepared parents for an adversarial attitude by Ministry reps. Ray Ferris, a retired employee and administrator with the Ministry has in latter years become a critic of substandard case work and oversight and a proponent of change to Child Welfare and in particular Child Protection. He has written a two-part comment that speaks to Case Conferences and the article written on the same subject by PAPA INBC.

CASE CONFERENCING (What a Parent Needs to Know)
By Ray Ferris

When one reads the preparation advice for case conferencing that is recommended by PAPA INBC, it is hard to imagine that this is preparation for some negotiating meeting with a benevolent and helpful agency, which is supposed to find every means of keeping children at home wherever possible. It is hard to imagine it will be a dialogue with an agency that is charged with looking after the best interests of children and with giving parents every help possible. No indeed, it is more like a preparation for a war, or some other violent contest.

MCFD HAS CHANGED AYN’S ASSIGNED SOCIAL WORKER

Listen! We all understand life and business. Sometime employees are reassigned and replaced. Sometimes personal life events require time off. So in one sense it is not surprising to learn that the Ministry social worker to whom the Ayn Van Dyk case was allocated, is off the case and a different social worker has now got the file. Of course he or she doesn’t merely have Ayn’s case with which to become familiar, but several others, perhaps many more cases. That sounds daunting. It also generates concern for parents that the resolution of their cases will be unsettled and delayed. There is apprehension that the mediation already accomplished will be misunderstood, forgotten or dismissed. That is certainly some of the unease with which Derek Hoare has been left after recent phone calls.

On Tuesday Derek said, “Well I just got off the phone with the new SW for the first time.... interesting to say the least. They would not comment on the length of absence to be expected. We seem to be looking at a very steep learning curve ahead for this worker. They are going to read the file, but as of yet seem largely unaware of where we are at in our dialog.”

A VERBAL BULLET CLIP – AMMUNITION MEANT FOR MCFD

By Dr. Ron Unruh in Help Bring little Autistic girl back to her daddy

A VERBAL BULLET CLIP – AMMUNITION MEANT FOR MCFD

The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) has exhibited its already notorious failure to abide by its own policy and legal timelines in the case of Ayn Van Dyk. Ayn is ten years old and she is autistic. The policy which both empowers MCFD and gives direction to its operations is called Child, Family and Community Services Act. CFCSA specifies clear timelines for speedy processing. Speed has not characterized the way Ayn’s case has been handled following her removal. Ayn’s father Derek Hoare is presently in the centre of this agency’s ineptitude. Assembled below is a clip of verbal bullets.