SOCIAL WORKERS NEED CHILD-PROTECTION TRAINING

This is an opinion piece by my colleague and guest writer, Ray Ferris appeared in The Times Colonist. Ray sent it to me after it was published there. whom you know as the author of 'The Art of Child Protection,' and as a frequent contributor here, as well as an advisor to countless parents as well as lawyer and members of parliament. You can order the book at rtferris@telus.net

The Walker judgement and several others have made it evident that an adversarial and even hostile culture permeates the ministry responsible for child protection. There are probable causes for this. One is that provincial social workers used to be responsible for both financial assistance and child welfare. The deep-seated antagonism to assistance applicants rubbed off on child welfare cases, often the same cases. The three children’s aid societies were kinder, because they handled no assistance. All services were amalgamated by the first NDP government.

The courts used to function well. In the late seventies I studied about 200 cases which went through the Victoria court. No cases exceeded statutory time guidelines and judges were vigilant in demanding proper notices and other parental protections. Only four cases went to contested hearings. Most cases were settled by negotiation. There were many registered social workers and there was a sense of professionalism among the staff members.

STRIKES AGAINST THE PLECAS APPOINTMENT

The disgrace, the shame, why not call it the outrage and scandal of the Ministry of Children and Families, uncovered and defined by the Judge Paul Walker's rulings in two landmark lawsuits brought by a mom we call J.P. against the MCFD Director and staff has compelled the government to do an objective review of the Ministry. Bob Plecas has been given this responsibility. His track record demonstrates his proficiency but he is disadvantaged by several factors. That's why in my view, Mary-Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the authorized Representative for Children and Youth, the certified government 'watchdog' over the MCFD, should have been selected. She can and doubtlessly will conduct her own review. That's her mandated job. It would have been commendable, so much more productive in the long term, for Hon. Stephanie Cadieux, Minister of MCFD, to depart from the adversarial posture historically typical of MCFD toward the RCY, and rather to work together with Ms. Turpel-Lafond to decontaminate this troubled Ministry.

HON. STEPHANIE CADIEUX and THE POISONED PORTFOLIO

*BY guest writer RAY FERRIS

Hon. Stephanie Cadieux

Being the minister for children and families has always been a poisoned portfolio, which has despoiled the budding careers of various politicians. Ministers have virtually no powers, yet they have to take all the heat for a chronically incompetent senior administration of career bureaucrats. The periodic child welfare scandals that erupt cause frantic wriggling and writhing, but no effective change.

Judge Hughes

How naive Judge Hughes was when he said that they needed to halt the turnover of Ministers and Deputy Ministers to provide stability and leadership.

Judge Hughe's Letter to Campbell / Part 194 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

On Friday, the court ruled against Campbell's Ministry of Children in upholding Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's suit. Campbell and the MCFD broke the law. That's what Judge Griffin ruled.

Turpel-Lafond required and requested materials from the government in order to complete her audit of the Child in the Home of a Relative program. She was within her rights to ask and to have the materials. The government had refused to release these specific documents and had also introduced legislation that would limit future information access retroactively to March 30, 2007. Turpel-Lafond sued the government on grounds with which B.C. Supreme Court Justice Susan Griffin agreed on Friday. Judge Griffin ruled that the Children's Representative was given access to cabinet documents when her office was created, and that it's clear from the law that Campbell and other politicians at that time placed a higher priority on protecting children than preserving cabinet confidentiality. Griffin ordered Campbell to give Turpel-Lafond the materials she had requested.

Judge Ted Hughes was called upon by Premier Campbell to conduct an independent review of the Child Welfare program of B.C. Ever since former judge Hughes authored the 2006 scathing review, making scores of recommendations upon which the government has acted, Mr. Hughes has appropriately maintained silence on MCFD matters. Hughe's review led to the creation of the office which Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond now occupies. After Friday's ruling it was hinted that Mr. Hughes might have something to say on Monday.

Well on Monday Mr. Hughes spoke - broke his silence today. Clearly he perceives a potential greater conflict down the road if the Government and the Ministry will not allow the Children's rep to do her job.

He underscored that in 2006 Mr. Campbell had supported the sweeping powers granted to this representative so that objectivity and independence could be assured in evaluating the progress and outcomes of the Ministry. Such powers for this office were an “integral and critical part of what both you and I were attempting to achieve,” Hughes expressed to Mr. Campbell. He mentioned that proposed changes to those powers will result in a “substantial impairment” of her ability to carry out her work as well as to “strike a negative blow to the heart” of efforts to repair public confidence in the system.

The government response on Friday was one of compliance with the present ruling but intention to pursue a protocol "that allows appropriate access to cabinet documents so that independent officers of the legislature can do their work." That still reflected control and lack of disclosure. So, Mr. Hughes has suggested that if Mr. Campbell refuses to withdraw the legislation, that the Premier should table the legislation to allow for mediation on a number of issues not least of which is that nonadaptive relationship between Turpel-Lafond and Lesley du Toit, B.C.'s Deputy Children's Minister. Hughes maintains that “this unfortunate and unacceptable relationship is standing in the way of the full repair of the child welfare system of this province which my 2006 report was intended to achieve.” “For obvious reasons I encourage you to take a leadership role in such a (mediation) initiative. We have to remember this is all about our kids — of that we cannot lose sight.”

As Lindsay Kines and Rob Shaw of the Times Colonist noted on Monday, May 17, 2010 1:03 PM, that Hughes suggested that just as Campbell sought Hughes’ help in 2006, the ex-judge would offer his services again, free of charge, “if you believe I could assist again."

The Times Colonist has provided a pdf document of the entire letter which Mr. Hughes sent to premier Campbell.

File photo credit Staff, Times Colonist

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 37 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

Five Years Ago - The Hughes Inquiry into MCFD Performance

There were grave concerns about the management of the Ministry of Children and Family Development when in November 2005 a Panel was named to review B.C.’s Child Protection System.

A Vancouver Sun article of December 29, 2005 was titled ‘BC Foster Children at Risk.’ That piece mentioned that the beleaguered MCFD was undergoing a sweeping review by Judge Hughes following the recent deaths of two children in care and the mishandling of child death reviews. There was an alarming shortage of foster homes. MCFD was acquiring more children than it had foster parents and homes. The Liberal government had restructured MCFD and the number of foster homes was reduced further. To its credit the Liberal regime sought other alternatives like mediation to allow children to remain with parents or relatives or be adopted. Nevertheless, overcrowding in some foster homes resulted. While so many foster parents regard their roles as a responsible trust, it is not reckless to imagine that recruitment standards for foster parents became relaxed in face of the need. Hence the title of the Vancouver Sun article and the suggestion of risk to children in foster care.

The panel’s mandate was to independently examine B.C.’s system of oversight, public reporting and advocacy with respect to the protection of children and youth.
Panel members were:
• Ted Hughes Q.C. (Chair)
• Grand Chief Ed John, former B.C. Minister for Children and Families and former law professor
• Jane Morley Q.C., lawyer and mediator, Child and Youth Officer
• Terry Smith, Chief Coroner, served with the RCMP for 35 years
• Joyce Preston, former Child and Youth Advocate, former director of social planning for Vancouver
• Ms. Maureen Nicholls, former commissioner of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission
• Thomas Gove, a provincial court judge who was commissioner of the Gove Inquiry into Child Protection 10 years ago, was available to engage in discussions with the panel if requested to do so by the panel.

A compelling term of reference was the review of deaths of children. The panel reviewed the roles and responsibilities of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Child and Youth Officer, the Chief Coroner, the Ombudsman, the Public Guardian and Trustee as they related to advocacy for children and youth and to monitoring and public reporting on the government’s performance in protecting and providing services.

It is the public reporting that chiefly interests me. That honesty and sincerity is essential to increasing trust and reducing fear. It appears that another review is required. Perhaps Mary Polak can generate that internally. I am sure she will want to as she acquits her responsibility to the best of her ability.