LODGING A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE MINISTRY OF CHILDREN

If you have a complaint to lodge about or against the Ministry of Children and Family Development, or the Child Protection branch, or a specific ministry official, or a court case or decision, then read this for some pointers. It’s Ray Ferris again, writing. He knows what he’s talking about.

“I will make one last point on today’s blog. If you complain about a court case to any ministry official you will always get the same stock reply. 1. They cannot discuss a case that is before the court. 2. They cannot interfere with the court process and influence a judge. Both these statements are nonsense and I will tell you why. It is true that they cannot tell a judge what to do, but they control what goes into the court and what they choose to tell a judge and what to conceal. They are notorious laggards when it comes to making the required disclosures under section 64. The guidelines stress that the hearings on young children must be completed in a timely manner. Both directors and judges seem to forget all about these guidelines when everything is delayed due to lack of disclosure. Yes the director is very successful at influencing the court; so don’t let them tell you otherwise. Likewise under section 48 a director can withdraw from the case at any time after a presentation hearing. All they have to do is to appear and withdraw and to file a written report giving the reasons. The reasons don’t have to make any sense, because only the paper and the signature matter. To the bureaucrat only process matters and content is nether matter. Even after 65 days of hearings, the judge has no choice but to allow the withdrawal.”

RAY IS THE AUTHOR OF 'THE ART OF CHILD PROTECTION.'

PROTECTING CANADIAN CHILDREN PROTEST THURSDAY JAN 31

A blogger and social activist with the pen name Papa Inbc has written the following invitation to all advocates for policy and operational change to the Provincial ministry known as the Ministry of Children and Family Development. He wrote this in a public forum, the Facebook page known as ‘Help Bring LittleAutistic Girl Back to her Daddy.’ 

Papa has his own advocacy online voice called PAPA (People Assisting Parents Association). with many stirring accounts and unapologetic criticism of current MCFD practice. And now, please read the invitation to participate in a protest that is coming soon. 

THIS WAS COURT DAY

THE STORY OF AYN VAN DYK

As told by her father Derek Hoare

Part Ten of Fifteen

THIS WAS COURT DAY

October 18-19, 2011

Oct 18

Arg!!! having a hard time getting myself to remember to sit down and write these on time... I'm bad. I will set an alarm in my phone to remind me; 11:30 pm.

So this was court day, much anticipated though I was working off the assumption that it was pointless... an accurate assumption it turns out. I kept Lyric home today with the faint hope that there could be a move to return. But my understanding was that if I refused to consent to their request to a 90 day temporary custody that a case conference would be ordered to see if the two sides could come together avoiding a distant and lengthy trial.

I arrived and saw no-one there I knew... Amie hadn't arrived yet, my lawyer was nowhere in sight, nor Amie's... nobody. After entering the courthouse two group members arrived and we headed into the courtroom. I saw Amie's lawyer and MCFD's lawyer as well as the SW... Still no sign of my lawyer. The hearing lasted about 10 seconds.... I did get to speak my first "word" ever in court... "Ya", when asked if it was me who was present. Surreal first word and over many months in!

ALBERTA RESPECTS CHILD IN CARE TIMELINES MORE THAN B.C.

An advocate named Papa InBC speaks out for children and parents whose lives have been turned upside down and inside out by the Ministry of Children in British Columbia for reasons this advocate believes are unjust. Papa InBC has replied to yesterday's blog post which I published and which was written by Ray Ferris. Papa has both a website and a Facebook page.

Here is is Papa's response.

Papa Inbc writes: I'm told Alberta respects child-in-care timelines more than B.C., and that the wait for trial is not excluded from the point a protection hearing grants interim custody based on evidence and testimony.

This would appear to indicate that what MCFD in B.C. is doing is unconstitutional for both parents and children affected, which flies in the face of what is in the best interest of children.

In support of Ray's suggestion, I suggest a class-action lawsuit be initiated on two points, first, non-emergency no-warrant removal, and second, "interim" custody that exceeds the time lines in the current CFCSA Act.

UNDER THE GUISE OF GOODNESS

Some days ago I composed a poem to convey the essence of the legalized act of removing an autistic child named Ayn from her parent and home for a reason that cannot be justified to the social conscience. She left her back yard and daddy didn't know where she was for three hours. For that she was taken from him five months ago and one can only imagine what she is experiencing. 

UNDER THE GUISE OF GOODNESS
by Ron Unruh ©

“It’s pernicious” is what I said.
There seems no better word for what they do,
these snatchers guised as guardians.
A pretext it has become, this protection of a child
when the youngster safe and happy is detached
by strangers.

“It’s insidious” I say to portray the taking of a child
without the knowledge of her parents
frenzied and fuming at the abuse of their child
and their own liberties.
What right can squash parental rights with impunity
when due diligence and fairness are derelict
and justice seems a stranger on a democratic soil.

“It’s sinister” I proclaim to parents of all children
because their own fears mount with the mention
of the protectors’ names.
This is not the only child to be taken
for her best interests don’t you see.
Free she was and alert although unpredictable.
She seems a stranger now, deeply drugged but controlled.

Pernicious, insidious, sinister do you now agree
are the appropriate descriptors for her abductors.
She is not at home because she wandered, oh but
she is a precious girl, precocious and autistic
and therefore apt to wander.
This is punishment not protection and perhaps she thinks
that she did something terrible. Why not, since the captors
have never inquired about the health of the family.
Strangers to justice they are – these takers.


Derek Hoare / 778-240-6373 / Facebook: justiceforayn.com
Derek's email: iconoclast_ensues@yahoo.com
Fundraising email: aynsfreedomfund@gmail.com
WEBSITE: www.Justice4Ayn.com
PLEA FOR AYN: http://on.fb.me/pUnuk0
THE PETITION: http://bit.ly/mrfdlE
VISIT OUR BLOG: http://bit.ly/qqO7ig
FUNDRAISING: http://on.fb.me/noNues
DOCUMENT LIST: http://on.fb.me/nQassx   

QUESTIONS THAT CHILD PROTECTION SOCIAL WORKERS SHOULD HAVE ASKED THEMSELVES WHEN RESPONDING TO AYN’S 3 HR. DAY TRIP.

QUESTIONS THAT CHILD PROTECTION SOCIAL WORKERS SHOULD HAVE ASKED THEMSELVES WHEN RESPONDING TO AYN’S 3 HR. DAY TRIP.

(On June 12, 2011 Ayn Van Dyk climbed out of her fenced yard and was gone for 3 hours. She was found by police and returned to her dad who had called 911. On June 16, CP workers took Ayn from her school & then told her father, the primary care-giver. Ayn is autistic, as is one of her two brothers, whom she has not seen for five months)

 

Sincere CP social workers are not unaware of the criticism directed at them by parents and other observers when children are removed from parental homes for reasons that appear insubstantial and unjustified. This note is directed to them, that is, sincere CP social workers. They are the altruists who desire to conduct appropriate protection and family support. The challenge comes when directives from their superiors suggest that in the interest of the child, ask questions later but act first. So a child is removed and the process of inquiry is so prolonged that relationships between social worker and parent cannot help but become strained and unproductive.

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

JOIN THE CONVERSATION / Part 387 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Please tell your friends to read this blog on a regular basis, to become interested in the cause represented here.

Ask them to JOIN THE CONVERSATION.

Help the Conversation by Promoting, Listening and Speaking Out.

GPS has over 145,000 hits so far, sometimes 1,000 per day. Some of you envision a movement of ordinary people with a voice loud enough to demand that legislators and government representatives will listen and respond with changes to the way the best interests of children is understood and administered in this province.

Yes of course, this particular GPS blog is dedicated to the return of three children to Paul and Zabeth Bayne. Yet the blog has become more than their story. It has become a story telling forum and a comment platform for countless other people.

In griping initially, I realized that the developing concerns that I had about child welfare and child protection in particularly, at least the way I saw it operative with respect to the Baynes, was more than a single family issue. Hundreds of families have been struggling to recover children from a Ministry that is so powerfully endorsed and equipped and bureaucratic that the Ministry work is invariably adversarial. It could and should be far more grace and compassion oriented. If it were it would evoke responses in kind from clients rather than the vitriolic reaction of helpless parents and the anguished cries of desperate children.

We are within weeks of learning whether the Baynes' hopes of a reestablished family will become a reality. It has been slightly over three years since the children were removed. I will be sure to let you know when the ruling is delivered. In the meanwhile, other sympathetic parents and suffering parents, and supporters, and advocates for change, and Ministry employees, and journalists and interested readers are stopping by at this blog as at so many others. Perhaps a movement can develop, an exponential swelling of genuine concerns to improve services to families and children and parents that is articulated well enough that our government, whoever forms it in the next election, cannot and will not want to ignore.

invite others to JOIN THE CONVERSATION - Perhaps we can be the Transformation

9 DAYS WITH MOTHER'S CORPSE / Part 366 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

CBC's photo was public info but not her name

A neighbour found the 15 year old Down's Syndrome female surviving in the Cultus Lake mobile home of her mother who had died days before. That neighbour, Lawrence Jewett, Trailer Park Manager, was quoted by the Canadian Press writer as saying, “I'm just glad we found her when we did because it could have been one hell of a lot of worse.” He and another neighbour broke into the trailer to find the girl emaciated and filthy. This was back in September.

Well yes it could have been worse and then what might the Ministry of Children and Family Development said in defence of its conduct in this matter. As it is, what does the MCFD have to say? That's actually what Children's Advocate Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond wants to know. At the end of yesterday's work day she addressed the media with some consternation. In speaking to the CBC she said, "The ministry hadn't reported it to me....Any time a child has been left alone, with a parent who has died, for a number of days, I consider that to be an injury to the child, especially when the child has special needs." The injudicious action to which she made reference was the failure of MCFD to notify her of this incident before she learned it like everyone else through the media. That's right. The perception is that this is another instance of the Ministry failing to take Ms. Turpel-Lafond's role and authority seriously enough to inform her. Was that intentional? The public is left to surmise. Whatever MCFD was thinking, the decision comes down now with double the weight. Turpel-Lafond will conduct an independent investigation and we will hear about this once more.

The fifteen year old girl was dehydrated and hungry after being alone for nine days, nine days with her mother's body on the floor, and she was compelled to fend for herself. Yet she is entirely dependent upon adult care. The girl's brother learned that paramedics deduced that his sister would also have been dead within two days.

Oh but that is only the tip of the proverbial berg. We are told that multiple complaints about the child's care are on file with MCFD, Fraser Valley Region. Have you heard of their involvement in other cases? Yes, neighbours and family members, specifically the girl's older brother had expressed concerns about the mother's deteriorating state, her depression, her addictions to alcoholism and drugs and her inability to properly care for the girl. Ms. Turpel-Lafond mentioned this in her remarks yesterday. This maternal caregiver was unable to manage any longer. It might be argued that MCFD should have intervened here but the mother threatened a lawsuit for kidnapping. The CBC online story said that government welfare funding for the family care had been cut off, and asked how this woman was going to get by? We are never satisfied with what seems the predictable response of the Ministry. Children's Minister Mary Polak while acknowledging the tragic nature of this event, said that a full review has been done and she points out that we do not have all the facts so we should not jump to conclusions and she was prevented from speaking further to the public about this case because of privacy laws. And I say that those privacy restraints were not the reason why her Ministry failed to divulge this information to the Child Advocate. Apparently here again is a point of contention between these two departments.  No, no, that was merely an oversight by Ms. Polak's department, a lapse of judgement. Please! When will Victoria start leaning on the regional leadership? We would not tend to jump to conclusions if at least the Children's Advocate had been better informed. Because listen to this...

Ms. Turpel-Lafond said that MCFD supervisory staff had instructed social workers not to intervene in this case because they had enough cases already and enough children in expensive care. Oh really? Then how does one account for the aggressive behaviour of a region to remove three children from Paul and Zabeth Bayne, parents who are more than capable of caring effectively for their children. Behaviour that forced the parents into court after waiting for three years with those children in foster care? The erosion of public confidence in  the decision making of the area MCFD continues because of what appears a breakdown of timely information and accountability.

Kurt Petrovich CBC Video Story, interview with the girl's brother

CBC Video Story  interview of the Jewetts who made the discovery

LISTEN TO THE CHILDREN / Part 355 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Listen to the Children

I am advocating for three children taken as an infant, a toddler and a small boy, the eldest of whom is now six years of age and each of these children in the same family have been outside their parental home for exactly three years. Children have memories. Some memories are indelible. The two oldest children have recently had many memory buttons pushed as they have been permitted by a Judge's order, to have visitation with their parents in the parental home for six hours each Saturday. These children have been thrilled to see familiar items, furniture, toys. Despite the change of houses in the children's absence, there are sufficient reminders of a home life to which these children are responding with longing for permanency. The regional Ministry of Children department should be gratified by the high comfort level these children have with their birth parents. That will be the just response. Social Workers whose interest is acknowledged to be in the child's best interests should be pleased with this strong indication of compatibility between children and parents and the home environment. That will be the professional response.

We are well beyond this point already in this case, but the social workers and supervisors associated with the Bayne file should be trashing their previous risk assessment of Paul and Zabeth, and taking a fresh, transparent look at these parents and their children and their family and home. Among the thousands of cases MCFD handles each year in British Columbia, the Bayne family stands out as one with incredible promise for success and happiness. MCFD should be pleased to say to the Bayne family, “We wish you well.”

But “It's before the courts.” Yes, indeed it is. MCFD made sure of that, but only after almost three years had passed. It should not have come to this. The Baynes should not be on pins and needles now, waiting to learn whether or not these three children will have their hopes extinguished and their memories forever scarred. It should not have come to this, and the Baynes are not to blame, certainly not the children, and arguably not the parents. Paul and Zabeth will not harm their children. Paul and Zabeth did not harm their child in the past. That's what they said – three years ago in 2007, and in 2008 and 2009 and still in 2010. No evidence exists to contradict that testimony.

We are in an awkward time here, a disgusting period of waiting for a judicial response to legal presentations wherein these parents have been compelled to defend their entitlement as the parents of these three. No effort and no amount of words were spared to convince a judge that Paul and Zabeth had forfeited their rights to parent these children. It was ugly. It is ugly.

Listen to the children. “Can we stay now?”

PARENTING BY THE STATE / Part 265 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Children's workers should be reined in.

One of these days I will write to tell the good stories of children's lives rescued and improved by the intervention of child welfare ministries. Their mandate is clear and essential, to protect defenseless children from abuse and neglect. I know that they exist. However, it is the miscues and bungles and stupidities that trouble child welfare's reputation in Canada and these are unnecessary and unacceptable. They catch my attention. Occasionally we talk about reforming child care and protection ministries. We certainly do that in British Columbia. http://leahgainorflagg.com">I refer you once again to reform advocate Leah Flagg. On her website you will see the appeal to sign a petition. Please do it. The effect of petitions is negligible I grant, but a list of supporters is better than silence.

Canada’s child-welfare agencies have among the broadest intervention powers in the Western world. Records show that Canadian agencies intervene annually in 200,000 Canadian children's lives. Caseworkers are equipped with immense powers and authority that can be easily misused unless there is vigilant restraint or monitoring. One can be a recent social work graduate and be authorized to enter someone's home without a warrant, apprehend a child without due process being completed and even able to appropriate police to enforce the procedure. A caseworker may require children to be clothed to a certain standard, fed, medicated and educated in a manner specified by the caseworker. Parents who do not comply may risk losing child custody, even visitation of their kids or have their children removed permanently. Families are being traumatized by caseworkers to a degree that it is nothing short of a distortion of the very system designed to prevent abuse. The Bayne family of two adults and three children have experienced this and countless other families as well to whose stories some comments on this blog have alluded. This blog and the comments written by others make a case for harnessing these agencies that are out of control.

Child Welfare agencies violate privacy and rights of individuals. Newborns have been taken from parents who are considered intellectually deficient; or from religious families whose faith in the Bible instructs them to corporal punishment; or homeschooling parents have been required to enroll their children in public school on the threat of removal. Provincial agencies have the power to intervene when children are considered “at risk” of abuse or neglect even if none of this has actually occurred. Then we hear of the cases, far too many, where the children that are removed experience treatment that is far worse than what was alleged to have happened in their homes.

When the swine flu was the big scare one mother kept her children home from school for one week after which someone lodged a complaint and a caseworker showed up to pull the children out of class to be questioned and then threatened the protesting mother that they might seize her school age children as well as two toddlers at home. Hundreds of incidents reported by parents testify to receiving threats that their children will be apprehended. Threat is one of the tools in the arsenal for silencing the objections.


There can be little or no public scrutiny of cases. Media is blocked from reporting details or questioning case workers. Always these limitations are said to be set to protect the children. We are learning that this government agency is capable of error in judgment yet the public cannot scrutinize cases because of these limitations. Judge Thomas Crabtree ruled against a ban on information proceeding from the court hearing concerning the Baynes or you would know almost nothing about them.

And if you care to read an alarming National Post article from 2009 which inspired today's post then go to this online article by Kevin Liblin, National Post June 12, 2009 entitled 'Children's Aid Society Workers Should Be Reined In, Critics say.
WE NEED A FRESH START

Chris Martell

Please note that an Anon writer has referred us to a story of Chris Martell whose 22 month old son died in a temporary foster care home two weeks ago. The boy died from drowning in a bathtub and suffered extensive scald type burns. Chris is walking 150 kms in two days to raise money to help him seek answers.

The story was quoted from this June 24, 2010 Saskatoon's StarPhoenix  website as well as two CBC columns
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Father+child+died+foster+care+plans+awareness+walk/3197423/story.html
A Promise:  The Saskatchewan Child Advocate promises transparency in June 15, 2010 in StarPhoenix

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/06/12/sk-child-death-foster-care-10612.html

CBC News   Sask. foster care blasted after child's death,  Last Updated: Saturday, June 12, 2010 | 2:25 PM CST 

CBC News  Son died in bathtub, father says , Last Updated: Thursday, June 10, 2010 | 5:56 PM CST

Let the Child Advocate be Heard / Part 218 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

My involvement with Paul's and Zabeth's campaign for justice has alerted me to related news from across the country. I am still amazed at the issue parallels in all provinces. I am not a news network so I am a day late, yet BC-rs, where have you heard something like this before?

From Winnipeg CBC news sources on Thursday came this information. Manitoba has a Children's advocate position just as British Columbia does. Billie Schibler is the current children's advocate who has been an outspoken critic of the government with regard to issues facing children in care. In April she left her post on indefinite leave due to personal family reasons. Hers is to be an office independent of government, dealing directly with the Manitoba legislative assembly – an office similar to our B.C. Advocate Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond. Ms. Schibler's term in office is scheduled to expire in April 2011. she left very early. Without an advocate in place, Bonnie Kocsis is the acting children's advocate, and an acting officer is not viewed as healthy because of the reluctance to affect necessary changes. An all-party committee will convene soon to discuss potential candidates to replace Schibler. Her office is in the news now because on Wednesday a private Advocate's report was leaked. It declared that provincial child welfare system is in a state of crisis. Manitoba has an NDP government. Although it was intended to be private, Liberal MLA Kevin Lamoureux who had access to the report because he is a member of the budget committee, forwarded it to the media. Lamoureux's defence of his action stated, "our children are much more important than something that happens beyond closed doors." The report stated that children in care have increased from 6600 to 8600 over a five year span. It claims that social workers are quitting due to overwhelming caseloads that are two-and-a-half times larger than is reasonable. It referenced critically the government policy of placing aboriginal children in non aboriginal foster homes. When this report was leaked, the Opposition requested that the Advocate appear to answer questions about the report but the government would not grant this and came under immediate heavy pressure. Then on Thursday, news broke that the NDP government will introduce a bill requiring the Children's advocate to appear annually before a legislative committee to answer questions about child welfare in Manitoba. Ostensibly the intention of this government action to create an interactive forum with the Advocate is to provide greater insight to the government and to Manitobans regarding the challenges as well as the accomplishments of child welfare. One is compelled to trust the government's motive integrity. Yet Family Services Minister Gord Mackintosh was quick to defend the government's past responses to the Advocate's concerns.

What do you think about that?

Read more: CBC children's advocate story

Advocate warns of state of chaos

Children's advocate website

AM 1150

Advocate on indefinite leave

Brandon Sun – social workers leave

Winnipeg Free Press – backlog a challenge for agency

Chaos

What is Advocacy