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.

MCFD ERRED IN MÉTIS CHILD'S CASE

This is the complete document containing four earlier segments that demonstrate how MCFD purposed to send SS from B.C. to ONT., regardless of regulations that should have prevented this action.

MCFD ERRED IN MÉTIS CHILD'S CASE

What influenced the Director of the Ministry of Children and Family Development to arrive at the decision to remove an almost three-year-old girl named SS from her Métis foster parents in B.C. with whom she has been since birth, in order to send her to live with non-Metis parents in Ontario, where her two Métis siblings live? Let's begin with the foundation that each of the two placement options in this case, the BC home and the Ontario home are good homes for this child.

That last sentence may reveal the decisive factor, the genealogical kinship. In this child's case you may agree that it was not enough to justify MCFD's choice. Using the Ministry's own legislated and documented criteria for determining placements, I will now tell you why the MCFD decision was unreasonable, and not in the child's best interests.

First, the regulation states that preference is shown for a placement that permits a child's contact with birth parents in order to enrich the child's sense of identity, provided that birth parents welcome the contact. A beneficial relationship was already established between the child and the birth parents in the same B.C. city during the three years she has lived with the Metis foster parents in B.C. In fact, these birth parents in B.C. are open and have repeatedly begged that the foster parents be allowed to adopt their child. Distance makes it impossible to maintain such quality contact with the family in Ontario and no attempt was made by either Ontario foster parents or birth parents.

Second, consideration is given to the child's physical, intellectual, and emotional needs and to her level of development. A professional appraisal revealed that irreparable damage would result to these aspects of the child's life if a move involved this significant trauma of removal from the foster family and a move to strangers in Ontario. In her B.C. foster home these needs were met for the first thirty months and her development progressed above norms.

Third, is the importance of continuity in care.  In the child's B.C. home, her continuity of care was uninterrupted until MCFD removed her in preparation for her transport to Ontario. That interruption was justified in the belief that the long term benefits of three sisters together will outweigh the loss of these formative years.  

Fourth, is the importance of a positive relationship with a parent as well as a secure sense of being a member of the family. SS was firmly established in her B.C. family consisting of foster mom and dad and older grown children. When the decision to move the child was being considered by MCFD and when BC foster parents contested this before the court in 2016, the child had no relationship with the prospective adoptive parents in Ontario or the two older Métis sibling sisters whom SS had never met. There was then and there may still be a high probability that a 'positive relationship' cannot develop with the other sibling girls.

Fifth, is the importance of preserving the child's cultural identity. The Ontario parental couple has not been in a position to preserve Métis culture. In distinction the B.C. foster family are committed to the preservation of the child's Métis identity and have taken steps to encourage this. The B.C. Metis Federation has been active and outspoken in their support of the child being kept with her Métis family and with part of the Métis community in her home province.

Sixth is the preservation of the child's cultural, racial, linguistic and spiritual heritage. The Ontario parents, upright and well intentioned for SS, are not themselves of Métis heritage.  With respect to their two adopted Métis sisters, no evidence exists of a continuing identification with the Métis community. There is no reason to believe that SS can have her heritage preserved in her new home. In the B.C. foster family, LM, the foster mom has Métis cultural heritage, and she and the child were well connected to the B.C. Métis Federation, community life and ceremonies. Furthermore, the Métis birth father is in Victoria and easily accessible.

Seventh, is consideration of the effect on the child because of a delay in making a decision about her future. Delays were created by the MCFD's repeated extensions of a Temporary Care Order (TCO), as though this was a probationary period for the foster parents and the foster child. Yet the child came to LM and RB when she was three days old and was with them for almost three years and no probationary period was required, and she could have been adopted to these foster parents as they requested, except for the Director’s refusal to consider this. 

Eighth, is the Parenting Capacity of each parenting couple. Both parenting couples enjoy reputations as good and responsible parents.  In Ontario, both parents have full-time jobs and the two sibling sisters have special needs. In B.C. both parents are employed full time but at home, and the mother (LM) is certified in ECE and Infant and Toddler Care and Special Needs.

Ninth, consideration is given to the other members of a family, the extended family. I have no information about the Métis sisters' interaction with extended family members of the Ontario family. In the B.C. foster family there are two older sisters and two older brothers.  These sisters are committed to the care of SS and one of them has certification in childcare. One of the brothers is particularly attached to SS and she to him.

Tenth, is the matter of the siblings, and the possible value or merit of seeing all three placed together. Most jurisdictions recognize that when two or more bonded siblings are in need of placement, for whatever unfortunate circumstance, a humane consideration requires that their trauma not be increased by splitting them up into separate homes. This situation does not apply to SS.  The two “biological” sibling sisters were born in Ontario and have been total strangers to SS, who was born in B.C. when her birth parents moved there. One professional opinion states that there is high probability/risk that there will be failure to bond and failure therefore of adoption. In this regard, LM and RB expressed commitment to helping SS meet her siblings when she would be deemed stable in her present B.C. home and able to understand the nature of such a meeting.

Eleventh, is the matter of Territoriality/regionality.  LM and RB as well as the birth parents live in B.C. where the child named SS was born.  The B.C. Adoption Act requires placement of a child in B.C. In order to affect the move to Ontario, MCFD manipulated existing legislation. The only language used by the MCFD for many months was “adoption”. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Adoption Act means what it says, and that adoption of a B.C. child cannot legally occur in another province, and by residents of another province, the MCFD abruptly changed its language to “guardianship” in Ontario, and later to a “foster parent agreement.”  Surprisingly, the B.C. Courts have accepted this deviation by the MCFD. While initially, SS has been sent to Ontario as a foster child with foster parents, the clear intention is that she will be adopted under Ontario Adoption legislation and with that comes loss of control by B.C. Further, the understanding is that B.C. must reimburse Ontario for a monthly supplementary grant to adoptive parents for this out of province sibling. 

LITTLE MÉTIS MISS S.S.

She is in Ontario now. She is with a family consisting of a new mom and dad and two biological siblings older than herself. She is three years old. This is brand new to her, an experience that is two weeks old. On one hand it seems good and right that she would be united with two true sisters. Clearly that is what was in the minds of the Director and caseworkers of the Ministry of Children and Families of British Columbia well over one year ago when they began this protracted process, litigation really. It involved orders filed, hearings, appeals, court appearances.

There is another story, another perspective and that's the one I will take some time to unpack. I will begin the info download today. I have written earlier, so let me rehearse the essential account. Since S.S. was two days old, she lived with foster parents. Neither the girl nor her foster parents may be named because of a publication ban. She is referred to in public documents as S.S. Her biological parents were pleased to see her in the care of these foster parents. Her mom and dad are Métis and of the fostering couple, foster mom is also Métis. Foster mom and dad loved S.S. and theirs is the only home she has known. They are her family. That may sound naïve. However, a Métis arrangement was conducted whereby the foster parents were regarded in the Métis community as the true parents of S.S.

It must be understood that the girl's new parents are non-aboriginal.

Foster mom and dad learned one year ago that the MCFD intended to move the child to the Ontario family. Yes, at three years of age. In late September after the foster parents had exhausted all legal channels, S.S. was removed from them, kept in another foster setting as legalities dragged on and then as October approached, she was put on an airplane and flown with her new family to their home in Ontario.

You can read more of S.S.'s story on a Facebook page ‘Bring Home Baby S’. 

and at either of two websites bringsshome.ca or bringsshome.com. 

WALKER'S SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 6 of 6 - Continued … More findings

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

The Ministry failed to carry out its obligations to protect the children from harm and to act in their best interests, yet the fault cannot be attributed to a single Ministry employee.  Rather, many opportunities arose for the Director to conduct a proper assessment and investigation of the reports of sexual abuse. She frequently received evidence and other information and different employees were at fault at different stages for various reasons. What is compellingly obvious is that the Director and her agents formed their opinions prematurely, before the children were interviewed, and so concluded that J.P. fabricated her report information and there really was not merit to her allegations of sexual abuse by the children's father.

Most startling is the fact that until the 64th day of the First Trial, the Director maintained this view that the allegations were groundless and that J.P. was unfit to parent. Then the Director changed her mind. Nevertheless, the Director supported B.G.’s claim for custody of the children and to the detriment of the children, unreasonably preserved that plan until March 29, 2012.

Justice Walker did determine that B.G. sexually abused P.G., the youngest child, at the time that the Director allowed him unsupervised access. The Director has exhibited lack of regard for directions from this court as well as for her obligation to present candid, full disclosure to the Court during the Apprehension Proceeding. The Province is responsible in law to pay for any damages suffered as a result, and is liable for special costs of the first trial.

When finally the children were returned to their mother, the Director thwarted the plaintiffs’ request for funds from another branch of the provincial government that provides compensation to victims of criminal acts. The plaintiffs proved this.

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 5 of 6 - Trial Two

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

In Trial Two the plaintiffs sought damages based on the tort of misfeasance, alleging intentional and reckless misconduct by the Director and her agents acting in breach of the standard of care as well as fiduciary duty, being motivated by bad faith and malice. The same claim for costs was made at first trial but put over to the second trial. More specifically in Trail Two plaintiffs claimed that the Director and her agents failed to protect the children from B.G.; failed to investigate reports of sexual and physical abuse; wrongfully apprehended the children from their mother; unreasonably held the unjustifiable belief that J.P. was unfit to parent; ignored Court orders; abandoned statutory obligations. The result has been ongoing emotional harm to the children from abuse by B.G. and from being withheld from their mother for two and one-half years. Further, while in the care of the Director the youngest child, P.G. was sexually abused because of the unsupervised access.  

In Justice Walker's Second Trial judgement, for ease of reference, he referred to the Director and her agents as the “Director”. The Director and the Ministry cannot be sued. Therefore, the defendant was the Province of British Columbia since the Province is responsible for the Director and the Ministry. The Province denied any basis for a finding of misfeasance, asserting that the Director fulfilled all common law and statutory duties to the children. B.G. denied all claims against him.  Judge Walker in his ruling certainly disagreed. He determined that the infant plaintiffs established the liability of the Province for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty owed to them. The plaintiffs, including J.P., also proved the misfeasance claim. Judge Walker determined that the Director and certain Ministry social workers acted well outside of their statutory mandate and the duty to protect children and that the nature of their libelous handling of the case varied depending on the individual. It ranged from intentional misconduct, bad faith, reckless disregard for their obligation to protect children, breach of the applicable standard of care to unreasonably supporting the custodial interests of the children’s father even if it meant he sexually abused them.

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 4 of 6 - First Trial

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 4 of 6 - First Trial
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.

The 'First Trial' commenced on October 17, 2011 and was a joint proceeding , that is, the hearing of the Director's application for an extension of temporary custody of the children was joined with the family law action brought by the mother of J.P. against her estranged husband B.G. whom she claimed had sexually abused her children. The trial was completed in 90 days.

During most of the trial, the Director (she and her agents) remained unwavering in her opinion that the sexual abuse allegations by P.J. had no merit and that sole custody should be given to B.G.; and that J.P. was unfit to parent because of alleged notable mental and emotional instability. B.G. represented himself although relying on the Director to advance his legal cause.

(Get ready for this) On December 14, 2011 during the Trial One, the Director admitted in a written statement that it was possible that the children had been sexually abused by their father but she continued to support B.G. for sole custody and guardianship. (Bonus surprise) Then (suddenly) after 64 days of trial, on March 29, 2012, after having appointed a new trial lawyer, the Director reversed her opinion and withdrew her protection concerns about J.P. and advised the Court that the children should be returned to their mother. Thereafter the trial issues were between J.P. and B.G. until the trial concluded in May 2012. Justice Walker found that B.G. had sexually abused his three eldest children and physically abused J.P. and he ordered sole guardianship and custody to J.P., also ordering that B.G. be denied access to the children.