DANNY FRANCIS IS DEAD & SO ARE SOME OTHERS

The Ministry of Children and Family Services is in the news again. Every few weeks another story breaks. This time MCFD's regrettable connection may relate to legislation as opposed to case management. The case? Danny Francis. 18 years old. Dead. By his own hand. That is enough to grab our attention. Now consider that three other teenage children also committed suicide within past months, and each one was a ward of the system. The occasioning factor of their suicides? A couple of them were ageing out of Ministry care. These have received government care, foster parenting or financial support, benefits … and with the changing of a calendar date, it's gone. Now they are gone. The desperation of these young people has to be the subject of an official inquiry of course, but a few people with a salary will have to make policy and legislation that better equips children in the CPS system so they are not overcome by loneliness and hopelessness.

There is so much more to each of these four youths' stories. Will reviews ever care enough?

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 

SARA JANE WIENS’ LAWSUIT

Isabella would be almost four years old now.  She is dead. In 2011 her mother Sara Jane Wiens was an Ontario resident who had fled to B.C. to escape an abusive ex-boyfriend. Her lawyer Jack Hittrich, says that the B.C. Ministry falsely alleged that Wiens was fleeing a child protection order in Ontario. He customarily has substantial reason for the things he says.

In Hittrich’s words, “She is told that she cannot parent because she poses a risk to this young child…The child is scooped from her. There’s no attempt made to work with her to reunite her with her child. They then completely abdicate their responsibility to monitor the foster home and attend to these injuries.”

Sara Jane Wiens was 21 years old when her baby, two-month-old Isabella was removed from her by MCFD in August 2011 and placed in foster care. At the time, Wiens was deemed unfit to care for Isabella. 21 months later in March 2013, her baby died in her crib while in that care home, a service that the government deemed was in the child's best interests.

DEFENSIVE SOCIAL WORK

It is uncertain why there has been an increasing number of 'emergency removals' of children from parents over the past twenty years. One plausible answer is an increase in defensive social work. Child protection workers are generally drawn to their work for the best of reasons, to assist children and families. When severe injuries and even deaths occur to children, with whom CPS has had a history, social workers and the Ministry itself have received adverse publicity. When the media have sensationalized such stories, a defensive tsunami of removals has typically occurred. One might deem this erring on the side of safety, on the side of the best interests of the child, yet it has often been an unnecessary over-reach, an exaggerated attempt to do what is right. What must not be overlooked is the extent of harm caused by unnecessary removals. The stresses sustained by affected families can provoke psychological, financial and marital harm. The Child Welfare system becomes stressed because unnecessary removals divert resources, overcrowd the courts leading to lengthy delays of process and to terms that children must remain in foster care.

THEY COULD HAVE BUILT HIM A HIGHER FENCE

Ray Ferris thinks I am more forgiving of social workers than he would be, so he wrote the following. 

I think if you want to assess the social workers properly then you need to go back to basic principles. This is what I always start off with and when you do that, the matters usually become quite clear. The basic mandate of child protection is to ensure that a child can be made safe at home, or in alternative care. This principle is firmly embodied in the CFCSA in which there are many admonitions to extend help to parents in making sure their children are protected.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

None but Ayn Van Dyk’s parents, know the precise answer to the questions I will now raise, except. You will feel that you can guestimate an answer as I have. We, however, are limited by the extent of our knowledge of the care we believe Ayn received when in Derek’s care, and our lack of knowledge of the foster care she has received since her removal in June 2011.

Well, just think of that. From June 2011 until today February 23, 2013, Ayn has been absent from her family home where she shared life with her dad and two brothers and had access to and visits with her mother Amie. One would have to be convinced that the government’s plan/strategy when removing Ayn, has resulted in significant improvement of Ayn’s life, health, and wellbeing,  in order to justify her removal this sustained period of foster care.

So here’s what I want you to do. I will paste here paragraphs of the Ministry of Children and Family, and I will let you respond with your assessment. The following is found on this website page, http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/alternativestofostercare/index.htm

Alternatives to Foster Care

The ministry’s first priority is to keep families together, where possible. We also recognize that sometimes it’s necessary for a child to live outside the family home when their parents are temporarily unable to care for them. When that happens, there are a number of options and choices to be made. Was it possible for the Ministry to keep Ayn with her family in June 2011?

There may be circumstances where a child’s or youth’s needs are best met through foster care, and foster families play an important role in providing homes for vulnerable children. However, foster care is a temporary placement, usually with people who are strangers to the child.  Have Ayn’s needs been better met met through foster care than they could be in Derek’ home?

As an alternative to foster care, children may, in some circumstances, live with a relative or another significant person with whom the child is comfortable and connected. Current research recognizes the benefits for children and youth to be cared for by relatives and others with an established relationship with the child when they are not able to remain in their parents’ care. Extended family care helps maintain family ties and enhances children’s opportunities to stay connected to their own families and communities. Was this option ever presented to Derek and Amie?

There are a number of options available for relatives or others to care for children and youth, including:

•  The Extended Family Program.

•  Placement with a Person Other than the Parent – If a child is removed from a family home because of safety concerns, a judge may make an order for the child to live in the custody of someone other than the child’s parents. If you care for a child under this type of order, you may be able to receive financial assistance. Did safety concerns drive the Ministry response in June 2011?  Did the Ministry do due diligence in studying Derek’s home and care ability?

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.”

PERFORMANCE MEASURES / Part 248 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

At its website page entitled PERFORMANCE MEASURES, MCFD has placed a couple of paragraphs informing us of the performance measures in place within the ministry. I admit that my difficulty is to suppress my cynical filter sufficiently to read these words without a bias for children safely nurtured within the homes of biological parents. So, even as my mind processes this MCFD webpage I view its content as a protection, preservation and promotional piece.

“Performance Measures”
“The Ministry of Children and Family Development is accountable to our clients and the public. We continually monitor our performance to track our progress and use the information to improve outcomes for the children, youth and families we serve and our programs and services. Improved performance and enhanced quality assurance are at the centre of our commitment to ensure children and families are strong, safe and supported to reach their full potential.”
“This report documents, in one place, seventeen measures that the Ministry of Children and Family Development has committed to report publicly. This is a first step in implementing a commitment made by the Ministry in the 2010/11 – 2012/13 Service Plan. We will add additional performance measures each year that will monitor our progress and help us along the path of continual improvement.”

Public Reporting of Performance Measures – March 2010
This public reporting contains much that may be of interest to you. Here are a couple observations.

1. Of all the calls received by the Ministry each year regarding protection concerns, approximately 30,000 will lead to a protection report. Information about protection reports is available on the ministry’s website.
2. The percentage of children in ministry care under a Continuing Care Order that are expected to remain in Foster Care until age 19 rather than being adopted or living with relatives is 34.9 %.
3. The percentage of children who “aged-out” from Ministry care, (turned nineteen years of age), that applied for income assistance within six months is 44.1%.
4. The percentage of children in the long term care of the Ministry who are in the expected school grade for their age is 78.9%.
5. The percentage of children under a continuing custody order during their grade eight year who go on to complete the requirements for high school graduation within six years is an appalling 28.2% in 2009.
6. In 2009, of the 8908 children in care, seven children or youth died.

We are still waiting for August 8-13, 2010 when the hearing under Judge Crabtree resumes in Chilliwack Court House, for final presentations by MCFD and by Paul and Zabeth Bayne's counsel, Mr. Doug Christie. The Baynes are naturally contesting a Continuing Care Order application by MCFD. The outcome we hope for is the return of three children to Paul and Zabeth after this almost three year separation.

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

WHAT COULD BE MORE IMPORTANT? / Part 223 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

We are not unanimous but we are talking. An interesting exchange has captured the interest of hundreds of readers each day. What occasionally confuses our comment exchange is occasional misreading or reading too much into someone else's comments. What clouds the exchange is misrepresentation and exaggeration when making a case. Sweeping generalities don't convince me but rather cause me to be skeptical of the comment and the writer. Some of the same content when written with conviction and plausible argument compels me to listen more keenly. I am going to synthesize some of the sentiments and objections or queries that are being expressed in the comments of each daily blog post.

We are agreed on the paramount value and importance of the family. When a child's welfare, health and protection is threatened in relationship with the biological parent(s), then family is not to be considered more important than the child(ren). Such is the horrible dilemma faced by social workers on many occasions. In some situations removing a child may decidedly be the most compassionate and responsible course of action. Social workers attest that child removal is and should be a last resort. Many people whose families have been disrupted by protective child removal are convinced that it was expedient rather than last resort.

We are agreed that child neglect or abuse must be ended, punished and prevented. We are mostly agreed that the security, safety and care of children is paramount. Nothing can be more important than that. Nevertheless there are some writers who consider child removal barbaric in any case. We are not agreed about what constitutes a viable ground for removing a child and disrupting a family. Suspicion works. Not all of us are content with the latitude that suspicion affords MCFD. Suspicion however is enough to get the protection wheels rolling. Suspicion must be investigated and settled swiftly. Suspicion is not the equivalent of evidence. However, intense suspicion requires evidence so a concerted effort is then made by MCFD to uncover anything that may reinforce a care order.

Some allege that justification for child removal frequently consists of manufactured negative evidence. Some allege MCFD engages in surveillance and some SWers deny this. Some writers stick to their theory that child protection agencies everywhere have been taken over by people bent on personal gain in terms of power, profit or reputation and some go so far as to say the entire system is geared to corruption of which monetary gain both institutional and personal is the driving force. While some valid points can be made in that regard these accusations are usually unsubstantiated.

Removed children must be housed somewhere, so a system of foster care homes provide for usually safe and loving environments for short and extended periods. Most of us but not all believe that many foster parents are dedicated good caregivers. A few should never have been trusted with someone else's children. Most of us find fault with a system that does not require the registering and licensing of all foster parents. Most of us believe that care by kin and extended family is a preferable option and should be practiced far more than it is. Some writers citing an actual case or two then make sweeping statements that all fostering further leads to ruined lives of crime and addiction and homelessness. Countering that are contributors who know that many foster children have escaped an awful childhood and young adulthood by being removed from beastly biological parental homes.

Most of us believe that social work is an honourable vocation and one which requires the highest of character qualities. We also believe that most social workers seek to serve people effectively and to deal wisely. Many of us believe that carte blanche criticism of social workers is unwarranted. We also believe there are social workers who faced with day to day pressures and verbal abuse, lose sight of ideals and their work suffers. A good number of people allege there are social workers who are mean spirited and should not be engaged by MCFD.

MCFD follows the law – yes it does! Sometimes in following, the result is right and sometimes in following that same law, it turns out so wrong.

Some writers supply web links to resources and information which is helpful in considering contesting opinions or making up one's mind. Some writer's call for report information yet seem in later responses not to be taking personal time to go to sites to find the data.

There is much more but ….................... How does reform come when we are not on the same page? Better question, how do we move the legislators to the same page?

Blogger has a comment counting glitch. Comments have already been published today but are not counted even though they exist. Hit the comments button to read.

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 56 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

A QUESTION OF INEQUITY

Paul and Zabeth have been informed in the past that when they visit their three children on the two afternoons each week, they are not to speak to their children about the past. That’s correct. They are not permitted to talk about what it was like to be a family two years ago. They are not to remind them of home as it was before the Ministry of Children stepped into their lives in October 2007 and removed the children from all that was familiar. These two little boys have been in four foster homes in two years, yet Paul and Zabeth are not permitted to speak hope to them about the possibility of coming home to be a family again. A supervisor sits in all these family gatherings and listens, even making notes of what is observed and heard. Paul and Zabeth must be in compliance or visiting rights may be removed completely, because these children now belong to the province of British Columbia under an interim court order. Interim lasts a long time - over two years apparently!

But then, please note this inequity! The other afternoon while Zabeth and Paul visited their boys, one of them told mommy and daddy that the caregiver has told him that if the Judge rules that she can keep the children, then she promises to put them in swimming lessons. Would you consider that to be talking about the future and seeking to engender hope for a certain future outcome? I would. So apparently the same conversational restrictions are not applicable to the temporary care giver. It’s challenging for me to envision a foster caregiver wanting to kindle in a child an expectation for a result that terminates an existing family completely. This child has been told that he will be with the caregiver for a long time. How much more constructive would it be for a foster parent working for the province’s child protection and family development agency to be on assignment to encourage that child to believe that his family will come together again because that is what ‘we all want.’ ‘We’ should pertain to every member of this MCFD enterprise. ‘Restoration’ seems not to belong in the vocabulary of the MCFD officials who have managed the Bayne portfolio. On this same afternoon Paul and Zabeth were reminded that they are not allowed to speak to their children alone or out of the hearing range of a supervisor. No private conversations are permitted.

The regional MCFD should be all over this to insure the integrity of the Ministry’s mandate is not compromised. The regional MCFD office that manages the Bayne case is the Fraser Region. It will be interesting to learn whether this is acceptable MCFD practice or whether the Victoria MCFD front office conscience alarm goes off when they learn of this.

Paul and Zabeth Bayne – Part 17 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

Who is Responsible? Who will be held accountable? Who is it within the system who has a heart for justice?

I know the Baynes. I officiated the wedding of Zabeth and Paul a number of years ago. They were a happy family three years ago. Even happier in summer 2007 when Baby B arrived. Baby B. Bayne was removed from her parents’ home and custody on October 22, 2009. She has not been home since then. She is two years of age now. She was two months old when the B.C. Government service known as the Ministry of Children and Family Development separated her from her mother and father. She was two months old. Think of this. She was a nursing infant. Mother Zabeth and daughter Baby B were newly bonding. Zabeth had anticipated a daughter after giving birth to two sons. She was not unaccustomed to the behaviour and needs of an infant. Everything was as it should be in this happy family living in Hope, B.C.

Today, on the 30th of October 2009, over two years ago since Baby B was last in her parents’ home, Paul and Zabeth are living in hope, not Hope, but clinging to hopefulness. Not that they have reason to hope by virtue of affirming responses from the government unit that seized the child. All their phone calls are dead ended and their letters left unanswered. Rather, their hope is in the Lord, for these parents are people of faith. They are not weird and whacky. They are merely committed believers in Jesus Christ as the Son of God their Saviour. All they have ever desired was to nurture their children within a loving environment in which good values and morals would equip their children for life. And they are no longer living in Hope, B.C. any longer because they have lost their house to lawyers’ fees as they have struggled to recover their children and their family. They rent now. They work as night custodians so they can visit their children during day hours.

If you are following this case you know that Zabeth and Paul have not only lost custody of Baby B, but also their two small sons. They were taken as well on October 22, 2007 as the Bayne parents were placed under suspicion and investigation by local MCFD and Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A brief recap follows, the details of which are in previous posts.

Zabeth the nursing mother two years ago, found herself with a baby that suddenly wouldn’t nurse, was unresponsive and didn’t cry, following a terribly unfortunate incident in which one of her small boys fell on Baby B as she lay on a blanket on the floor. This accident and her baby’s symptoms concerned her enough that Paul and Zabeth took her to the local hospital. After a series of visits to several hospitals she was brought to Vancouver Sick Children’s Hospital where she received care and assessment. When one doctor concluded that Baby B’s condition was consistent with Shaken Baby Syndrome, the saga began.

The RCMP cleared the Baynes and the boys were returned but Baby B was retained. The boys’ were returned, sort of, under a supervision agreement which required Paul and Zabeth to live with their sons in Zabeth’s parents’ home. Is the presumption and gravity of some of these decisions becoming clear? Then in June of 2008 without justification the boys were also removed and they are still gone.

And still, regardless of how many letters the Baynes send, they seldom receive even the courtesy of a response, and never any answers of substance. They are compelled to go to a court of law where the future of their children and their family will be decided. It should break your heart. They cannot afford a lawyer. But when a lawyer takes this case, and one will, the shame and the scandal of the abuses of power that have hurt a family so badly will be exposed.

Paul and Zabeth Bayne – Part 16 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

This photograph of Bethany's arm was taken by horrified birth parents Zabeth and Paul Bayne during one of their scheduled visits with Bethany when they discovered this bruise on her arm, sustained during the safe and protective care she is supposed to be receiving from foster care givers under the administrative authority of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It appeared to them to be the print of an adult hand which might only be left by applying undue and unnecessary pressure on a tiny girl's arm. With their concern, Paul and Zabeth appealed to every appropriate government official and not one person provided the courteousy of a response. They even requested that their daughter be moved to another foster home for her protection but this request was not given attention. And if this bruise was not caused by a human hand but rather from a fall or some other incident, wouldn't you think this should find its way into a report?

Don't you think the supervision and accountability grid is missing critical social and people skills and leadership here? I have been a professional service provider and care giver and pastor for over 40 years and I would never treat someone this way. I would never 'not respond.' These are the birth parents and they deserve answers and responses from the servants of the people of this province. There is absolutely no justification for silence in this matter. I appeal to journalists everywhere to jump on this story.

People all over this country are anxious to hear that the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development is doing the right thing. This treatment of the Baynes by a district division of MCFD is outrageous, deplorable and it must be arrested now. We implore the responsible leadership of MCFD to let this child come home to her parents. Let her brothers come home to their parents! Let these children be together in their parents' home where they are safe and loved and secure.