Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 3 of 6 - Unsupervised Access

This is my synopsized prose version of Justice Walker's 140-page judgement presented in several segments that reveal the substance of Walker's overview of evidence that demanded his verdict against the Ministry of Children's Child Protection. No stated opinion or fact appears here that does not also appear in the Justice Walker's ruling (legal document). It is public information

Because of the allegations of sexual and physical abuse, Judge Walker issued a court order on December 21, 2009, that permitted B.G. to have only supervised access (A Supervised Access Order) to his children. Then on December 30, 2009 without any basis for the action, the Director apprehended J.P.'s children. Mr. Strickland without foundation, misled the Deputy Director by informing him that J.P. was suffering from mental distress and illness so severe that she was a risk both to herself and to her children. Mr. Strickland and his subordinates failed to insure the truth of information contained in their prepared report drafts to the Director. The Director then initiated the Apprehension Proceeding in Provincial Court in January 2010, but did not disclose to the presiding judges the allegations of sexual 
and physical abuse or the Supervised Access Order and the circumstances relevant to it.

The Provincial Court relying on the Director's information, made orders that permitted the Director to use her discretion in providing to B.G., access to the children, even unsupervised access. Against the vigorous objections of J.P., in May 2010, the Director did provide to B.G. unsupervised access, even though B.G. would thereby be in breach of the Supervised Access Order with which the Director was familiar.

As early as February 2010 almost all of the social workers involved with the case had become convinced that the children should be returned to their father and they supported his claim for sole custody. The children were briefly placed in care of J.P.'s sister and subsequently with her brother and sister-in-law, and by June 2010 they were with a foster parent. The Director continued temporary custody of the children well beyond the maximum time permitted by the governing statute, and kept the children in foster care until June 2012. To do this, the Director relied on part of a section of the governing legislation that she should have known was inapplicable.

RESOLVING SYSTEMIC AND NON-SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS IN CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES, Part 6

By Ray Ferris, (This piece is one of a series Ray will write here.)

Lawyers and the adversarial culture of family court.
Another thing that has developed since the enactment of the CF&CSA is that the use of lawyers has increased tremendously. Now that proper training in the act has become uncommon, the social workers rely on legal advice for every function. Interviews with clients have become so adversarial that they are often conducted with counsel present. This intimidates clients to the point where they feel they too must have an advocate present. It should be obvious that the legal profession and the courts have a very old tradition of being adversarial. It is also well known that the more adversarial the culture, the more financial benefit goes to lawyers, so they have little incentive to negotiate. The adversarial culture is so deeply ingrained into the legal profession and the judiciary that they seem unable to think in a different way. They just cannot help it. This culture now permeates the family court and processes have become as formal and adversarial as criminal court. The informality allowed in the act is soon forgotten.

It has often been said that courts do not dispense justice, but they dispense law. Family courts do not protect child welfare, they dispense process. This process often becomes so lengthy that child welfare gets drowned in process. No wonder many people are now wondering whether the family court is no longer suitable for deciding protection cases. Ways and means should be sought to have cases heard before some sort of panel of experts and only sent to court if unavoidable.

Ferris retired after a career that included significant years with the MCFD. He has written a book entitled 'The Art of Child Protection.' You can order Mr. Ferris' book entitled 'the Art of Child Protection' by contacting the author directly at rtferris@telus.net.

THE COUNTDOWN HAS BEGUN

 Nine days until the TCO comes to its conclusion, that is, the end of the temporary care order applying to Ayn Van Dyk, daughter of Amie Van Dyk and Derek Hoare. Expectation is high that twelve-year-old Ayn will be returned to one of the parents, likely Amie. If that outcome is realized, one extended family will be ecstatic with a range of emotions, and a phalanx of supporters on several continents will be thrilled.

In that case I wonder what Hon. Stephanie Cadieux will think about the Ministry of Children and Family Development of which she is the Minister in charge. An individual case is customarily not a priority for a Minister but Ayn’s case will have come to her attention. It’s a unique case. It’s a distasteful case.

It’s true that Ayn’s case did not transpire during Hon. Cadieux’s watch and she came into office late in this girl’s saga but if she has apprised herself at all about the details, she will know how this story is perceived by responsible readers of facts. Ayn was taken for an apparent reason, that Derek, the sole caregiver at the time, could not manage the parental responsibility of this disruptive and unpredictable autistic child. I described it as an apparent reason, because conscientious fact-finding would have assured a diligent investigator that Derek, if not perfect, was an effective and loving parent. He was also caring for two of Ayn’s siblings, older brothers, one of whom is also autistic. That’s right. Ayn is autistic. Sizeable commitment to be sure, but Derek viewed Ayn’s behaviour as entirely predictable and her disruptions when they occurred were manageable through his conversational persuasion. He was the Ayn Whisperer.

She was at home and happy, and she was also curious, understandably so, because she was autistic, and as an autistic child sometimes does, or, any child does, she scaled the backyard fence one afternoon and explored her neighbourhood. She didn’t venture far. The RCMP found her at a nearby neighbour’s yard. Derek felt he had no option but to call for help when he couldn’t locate her. But of course, RCMP must make reports, and the Ms. Cadieux’s Ministry was called in, before it was Ms. Cadieux’s ministry, and the administrator and social workers expected Derek to voluntarily sign a release form to let them take Ayn from him. Even if this appropriation was temporary, he was opposed to it, vehemently to say the least. So MCFD affected a surreptitious seizure of the child while she was at school. This was in June of 2011.

You read that date correctly. Even if Ayn was taken so she could be examined medically, socially and psychologically, even Hon. Cadieux will have to admit that three years is an excessive examination period and I would add, an unwarranted length of time to keep the child from her family and in the care of strangers who become simulated family. It doesn’t matter how positive the foster parenting has been, the conduct of the Ministry in this case is reprehensible, inexcusable. If Hon Stephanie Cadieux wants to make a significant mark on this Ministry during the brief time she holds this portfolio, because Ministers get switched around with frequency, I recommend that she delve with determination into the reasons why there are numerous cases of children being removed and then withheld from responsible parents and grandparents for extended times, and then meet that inquiry with suitable procedures to return children speedily. Perhaps she can expedite an unraveling of the mystery of red tape so that twelve-year-old girls do not miss three years of their lives with those who love them most.

Derek and Amie do not live together. Their marriage dissolved years ago, but with mutual respect Amie supported Derek’s single parenting of all three children. There is much that I do not know, but I am assuming Amie will be thrilled to see her daughter released from government care, even if she is returned to Derek. If the judge, on the recommendation of MCFD, rules that Ayn be returned to Amie, and Amie is able and willing, as I believe she is, that may be a wise step as this young woman enters her teen years. I trust that Derek will acknowledge the wisdom of such a move. Furthermore, I trust as well that both parents will find ways of allowing these children to see each other frequently. The countdown of days has begun again.

IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT AYN WILL COME HOME

Today, word has been received by Amie Van Dyk, that she should expect to have her daughter Ayn released from Ministry care into the care of the child's mother. That's Amie. This news was conveyed by the social worker assigned with Ayn's case. The social worker reportedly made the announcement with permission from the supervisor. Understandably Amie is in shock, processing her exhilaration which seems surreal at times, difficult to believe and too good to be true. It will have been three years that this child has been withheld from the custody of either parent.

MEDIATION - THE POISONED APPLE OF CHILD PROTECTION

The Poisoned Apple by DevianArt

Ray Ferris has written another timely piece today. Ray is an occasional contributor who provides sage counsel because of his years working with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. He meets many families who are struggling to recover their children from MCFD and is justifiably critical of the cruel bureaucratic delays. Today he writes about Mediation and expresses caution.

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!

TV REALITY SHOW / Part 373 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

This would make a great reality TV show. I'm serious. Think about it.

It's a popular format. Numerous celebrities are having a second-wind career from reality shows filmed around the true life scenarios of their own lives, and when it involves whole families, they create appeal to a wider age spectrum of viewers.

The Gene Simmons Family Jewels show is a great example. It features former KISS rocker, Gene Simmons, and his girlfriend, actress Shannon Tweed, whom he proudly never married but has lived with since 1985 and is utterly devoted to her. Also integral to the show are their two children, Nicolas born in 1989, and Sophie in 1992. Occasionally Shannon's sister, Tracy Tweed also appears.

A host of others like the Ozzie Osborne Family Album and Hulk Hogan and his family and action film superstar Stephen Seagal now turned Lawman and Paris Hilton and M.C. Hammer all have tried or are trying their hands at this medium for making cash. And that is precisely my reason for mentioning this possibility in the context of British Columbia's Ministry of Children and specifically the child protection arm. MCFD and the public are constantly carping about the government budget cuts, the consequent staff shortages and large case loads. Critics of child removals and foster parenting are always putting forth arguments that allege monetary agendas. I just think we should meet these issues head on by considering a sure-fire solution for everyone.

I already write reams of posts that suggest that MCFD is a side show so why not capitalize upon this with a proposal to Canada's Global Reality Channel which specializes in such shows. It's a natural. A persuasive producer or two could persuade Mary Polak and Leslie du Toit and the cast of Regional Directors to agree to this enterprise. It holds the possibility of generating millions in revenue for the Ministry. The next BC Premier should be pleased because it reduces the headache of funding this behemoth of child care. Some of the begotten money could be dedicated to parents who have lost almost everything on legal fees. A couple of good writers could pull out true stories from all the regions, subscribe the participation of the principals, the clients, i.e. parents. A world class director could have his videographers and sound people in MCFD offices, family homes, at visitation sites, in the court rooms, wherever good authentic dialogue can be obtained to dramatize the contention between the Ministry of Children and broken-hearted parents and disillusioned children. Court observers and friends could be interviewed for their reactions and opinions. Can't you see it already! A Fantastic journalistic coup, a hit! And imagine being on site when a judge rules against parents, or when social workers high five each other in the hallway after a decision in their favour. The range of emotions make this a winner. Oh, and if good parents got their children back and a great musical score plays in the background – how great would that be! The spin off revenues from sales to the UK, USA, New Zealand and Australia would be astronomical.

The show could be called one of the following, Big Money, High Risk, Flight or Fight, MCFD, Saddest Loser, or House-Broken.

COMPARATIVES BETWEEN RCMP & MCFD / Part 363 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Let's Compare the investigative practices of MCFD and RCMP

None of this affords me pleasure. I have all of my life held our governments and their agencies and law enforcement in high esteem. I have had little reason to question their integrity and uprightness. This past year because of my introduction to the injustice suffered by one family I have been exposed to the scores of other stories close to home and I have grown apprehensive and dismayed. My research suggests that child protection has lost its way in every province and if that was not startling enough in every civilized society. What is equably written here in this blog is blasted out with vehement rhetoric in newspapers, magazines, online websites and blogs all over the world. I have developed a unpleasant case of cynicism over these months. I am unsure whether it is a treatable condition. For the short term, I know I will have relief when the Baynes get their children back. But what about the thousands of other children who must stay in care away from the parents with whom they desire to live and who love them.

RCMP Coat of Arms

Similarities between MCFD operations and the deficiencies in RCMP investigations

A pattern of deficiencies in RCMP investigative processes have been uncovered in recent well publicized cases and we recognize some parallels in the way MCFD is processing child protection cases. These are deficiencies have been mentioned:

a. A preset mentality that someone is guilty - MCFD is similarly inclined to form an attitude that the parent(s) is guilty of some kind of abuse or neglect and so does all in their power to produce evidence however insubstantial.

b. Ignoring available evidence or actual evidence that contradicts the preset - Similarly MCFD predictably filters acquired evidence in order to promote that evidence which supports its view of the situation and it has failed to interview available and potential witnesses who would not support the preset mindset.

c. Pressing forward with the prosecution process by laying charges anyway – Similarly MCFD in the Family Court will continue their prosecution or persecution of parents involved to deny them justice and convince the Court of the charges they have against the family. I have witnessed this myself.

Factors in MCFD investigations of families:

a) MCFD says that it takes a forensic approach. This is acceptable provided that a balanced and thorough investigation is conducted in response to allegations, but often allegations have little substance.

b) Typically MCFD looks only for that which is wrong or deficient in a family scenario and places the parenting in the worst possible light ignoring all their admirable points.

c) Often investigators accept the views of those who support allegations while ignoring the advocacy of those who support the family.

d) Interviewing children who are considered at risk often is inferior, while parents may not be interviewed at all prior to the removal of children.

e) Many notifications of concern about children and false allegations against parents are found by MCFD investigation to require no further action.

f) Nevertheless, many investigations are pursued with a purpose to find something significantly wrong in order to justify the previous over-reactive removal of a child or to justify a subsequent removal.

g) The agenda may involve a vindictive attitude against a parent or social engineering bent designed to put the children with more suitable caregivers, (as with the removal of aboriginal children in BC and other provinces).

h) If the initial allegation of abuse proves empty, MCFD will stretch other matters in order to come up with other problematic suggestions like neglect or lack of control.

This is inevitable and healthy

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 74 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

I WISH THIS WAS ONLY FICTION

I wouldn't call it a thriller but Paul and Zabeth Bayne have been living a nightmare for two years that could easily pass as a dramatic novel manuscript. The problem is that this is not fiction but real life, and the life of the Bayne family needs a happy ending unless this is a Stephen King product.

I am calling this story, A STATE OF EMERGENCY

WHAT AN INCREDIBLE PLOT
Here is the plot line. Picture two small boys, two and four years of age playing in their family home. Their baby sister is lying quietly and contentedly on a blanket placed in the living room floor. The children's father prepares a family dinner. Their mother leaves the living room momentarily to express milk for her infant daughter. Upon returning to the room fifteen minutes later she sees one of her sons running through a doorway and stumbling and falling upon the infant girl. The initial concern dissipates as the baby stops crying and settles down. Later however, the mother and father become concerned about the baby girl's behaviour. They take their child for examination in several local hospitals and these prove inconclusive. Unsatisfied, they at last take their daughter to a city Children's hospital. There, a physician renders a Shaken Baby diagnosis. The parents are immediately suspected. Child Protection personnel come to the family home and take the children away. The parents are subsequently arrested for aggravated assault on their own child, separately interrogated. The mom is traumatized by these events and is briefly hospitalized until she is stabilized. Then they learn that the police have determined there is insufficient evidence to proceed with charges. The charges are dropped and their case record expunged. In fact the police issue an apology to the parents for wrongfully taking fingerprints and photos and then they wish the Baynes the best of luck. The government's Child Protection agency nonetheless refuses to believe the parents' version of what happened. The agency is convinced that this was non accidental and therefore the parents are under suspicion and considered a potential risk to their children. Months pass as the parents try to assert their character credibility and to retrieve their children but all their efforts are unsuccessful and in the process their legal expenses require them to forfeit their new family home and to sell the mother's grand piano which is her livelihood as a teacher and concert pianist. During all of this time, the young parents are living with the young woman’s parents because it shortens the distance of their weekly visitations to the children and it provides some mutual moral reinforcement. The boys are permitted by Child Protection to live with the parents in the supervised arrangement of their maternal grandparents’ home. They are still without their tiny daughter.

The Bayne’s tortuous story gains public attention and television journalists clamour for their narrative. They agree to a televised interview which is recorded for later showing. Between the day of the recording and the date of the airing of the segment, a mediation arrangement is introduced by the Child Protection agency by which the parents are promised that the two boys may live with the parents wherever they choose to live. This is permanent and it is wonderful news. Then the TV segment airs. Without announcing their arrival, the Ministry people accompanied by police, interrupt the birthday of one of the small boys in the Grandparents’ home. They seize the Bayne boys amid the screams and cries of children and adults and once again have custody of all three. The Ministry justifies this action on the basis that the parents contravened the agreement that curtailed media contact. Little attention is paid to the fact that the interview was agreed to and videoed days before the Baynes learned that they could have full custody of their boys again.

This is a devastating occurrence for the family and for their friends. The parents are known and respected by a vast friendship network that write countless letters of appeal to the Government and for many months scores of people stand in front of elected officials' constituency offices holding placards of protest and appeal. After some time even the Ministry's lawyer says there is no ground for holding the boys and advises the Ministry to return the sons. The Ministry disregards the advice. The Ministry will put these children up for adoption and is moving this case to court, but again slowly, very slowly. The Baynes are unable to afford any more lawyers. Then remarkably the Baynes are met by a high profile Canadian lawyer who expresses willingness to represent them. It is now over two years that the Ministry in the Baynes contend is a violation of the Ministry's own governing ACT and allegedly without an updated court authorization beyond the initial order has held three children from their parents.

That is not the end of the story. It is still being written. You have only finished half of this narrative subtitled, “The Bayne Campaign for Justice.” This tale could go in several different directions. You are going to help to write the conclusion.

Today, please go to the petition page to sign for them, and send this link to your friends.

And if you wish to attend a piano concert this Sunday Jan 3 2010 in Richmond BC., in which Zabeth will be playing, and funds will go into a trust to allay legal expenses, you must reserve you free admission seat by calling 778-228-4717 or sending an email reservation request to sendthechildrenhome@gmail.com

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 53 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

COURT CASE YESTERDAY
Yesterday, a pre-trial court session was held at 1:30 pm in the Chilliwack Court House. Zabeth and Paul Bayne and their legal representative Doug Christie were present as was the legal counsel for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. In court the lawyer for MCFD admitted that with respect to the two boys, MCFD possesses no evidence of physical or emotional abuse or neglect. And remember it was he who told MCFD many months ago to return the boys because there were no grounds for holding them and MCFD disregarded this counsel. With respect to the Bayne’s two year old daughter MCFD legal counsel had to acknowledge that MCFD is relying solely upon the original diagnosis of one doctor who concluded she was a shaken baby. During a private moment outside the court room the MCFD legal counsel stated to the Baynes’ lawyer that this doctor has seen nine of the eleven reports gathered from ten medical experts who dispute the original diagnosis. The admission concerning the two boys underscores the unsupportable position for MCFD to continue to withhold these sons from their parents. Yet because of the nature of this particular hearing, the Bayne side was not able to present a request for an interim custody order in favour of the parents. The Baynes were very pleased with the work of their legal representative Doug Christie. The Judge set the date for trial for January 13 which is thankfully much sooner than was earlier expected. All of us who support the Baynes may have been eager for better results, such as the immediate return of the boys. What disturbs me most is the knowledge that given what the MCFD lawyer admitted about the boys, there is indication that MCFD will still ask for a custody order that potentially authorizes the adoption of all three children. As unlikely as it may seem, the Judge still has the authority to make a judgement in this case before the trial that would favour the Baynes. Nonetheless, here was the strong response from the Baynes following the court appearance. “God can still choose to resolve this out of court through the orchestration of any number of possibilities. He can still have our children home for Christmas. We are still going to pray for this and I know all of you will too.”

After the grueling afternoon, Zabeth and Paul had to go to work in the evening. You may remember me telling you that they work as night custodians so they can be free during the daytime, to visit their children two afternoons per week. Can you sense how much they need your moral support?