DOUG HUGHES - NEW DIRECTOR OF CHILD WELFARE / 509

On March 31, 2011 Mary McNeil, the new Minister of Children and Family Development re-established the position of provincial director of child welfare by announcing the appointment of Doug Hughes as the new Provincial Director of Child Welfare. She did this in order to provide greater accountability across the province and improve child protection practice.

In so doing she has effectively reversed the decision of former children's minister Mary Polak and her ex-deputy Lesley du Toit, who abolished the position in 2008.  Doug Hughes, currently an assistant deputy minister with the ministry’s Interior region, holds a master’s degree in social work from the University of Calgary.

STEPHEN BROWN MAKES ME OPTIMISTIC / 476

You already know that former health services chief administrative officer Stephen Brown has replaced Lesley du Toit as the deputy minister of children and family development. His experience encourages me. Most of his career has been spent in child and family services. He was CEO of the Ma-mowe Capital Region, Child and Family Service Authority in Alberta. Stephen has worked for the Government of Alberta’s Ministry of Children’s Services where he was Executive Manager for that province’s Child Welfare Act Review. He has a PhD focusing on the management of strategic change in the public service and holds Masters degrees in Business Administration and Organizational Psychology. Brown's autobiography is posted on Royal Roads University's Website as I noted yesterday.

This is why I am hopeful:

DR. STEPHEN BROWN REPLACES MS. LESLIE DU TOIT / 475

Dr. Stephen Brown

The Victoria Times Colonist put it this way, “The children’s ministry also gets a long overdue management overhaul with the welcome appointment of Stephen Brown to replace former deputy minister Lesley du Toit.”

One wonders what changes the changing of the principals will have upon the MCFD. On one hand, the continual changing of key personnel every few years cannot affect the necessary transformation. On the other hand many readers will welcome this bureaucratic change.
Premier Clark explained the Ministry changes this way, "We want to have a focus on families in the government and my deputy [minister to the premier John Dyble] felt it was time for a change there." said Clark.

MAKING IT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE / Part 472 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The Bayne family is a prime example of the way by which the Ministry of Children and Family Development (“Ministry”) fails to follow the principles outlined for it in the Child, Family, and Community Service Act (“CFCSA”). Unless Leslie duToit and Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond give attention here, there will be other cases like this one that become public knowledge. I must compliment Paul and Zabeth for the tenacity with which they have brought their heartache to the public. What else were they to do when the agency that should be helping them shut its ears to them because the Baynes would not admit to a criminal act.

SOCIAL WORKER TOOLKIT SHOULD INCLUDE HUMILITY AND INQUIRY / Part 416 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

If Victoria's head office of the Ministry of Children and Family Development truly wants to transform the Ministry as Leslie du Toit has projected, she must understand where her current transformation proposal breaks down. She too must work within the parameters of the CFCSA (Child and Family Community Services Act) or at least with those constants in mind. We have already heard from some of you what a horrid piece of work the CFCSA is. It is in the application of the content of the Act by Directors, Administrators, Team Leaders and finally by social workers that the ugliness of its provisions become reality. The Act has developed among MCFD an attitude that can best be described as follows.

I have been learning that what characterizes the work of so many social workers is a paternalistic presumption. They are professionals and they convey to parents and others that they are the experts with regard to situations in which parents and children find themselves. These professionals are the ones who know what the solutions are to family problems. The great debacle occurs for parents because MCFD caseworkers who are insuring the protection of a child are driven by the too frequent almost default solution of removal of the child even if temporarily. Nothing like taking one's child away to make him or her shape up, make changes, get better. Of course, nothing like taking the child, to mess up a child for a good long while, if not forever. Now granted, directors and social workers are under pressure to insure no mistakes are made, that is, a child left in a vulnerable or risky place. So with that imperative the social worker instinctively assumes a professional certitude. They can't be wrong. They become dismissive of other viewpoints, opinions, perspectives whether from family members or other professionals.

What du Toit and Polak must see for true transformation to be realized, is that social work in BC needs a good dose of Mother Teresa poured over the presumptive heads of MCFD SW’s. I believe newly trained social workers come with that anointing. Please don't lose it. Don't let the system smother the altruism to which you committed yourself. Please, please restore to acceptable social work practice the attitudes and spirit that can admit to being wrong, can with openness and vulnerability present to family members and other professionals all of your actions, assessments and authority. Be willing to dialogue. Maintain a spirit of inquiry. Please include humility among your tools. You will be so much more effective. You will make fewer mistakes and you will give families help and hope.

This Blog has been advocating the return of three children to their biological parents, Paul and Zabeth Bayne, for which a ruling is expected from Judge Crabtree within the next seven days. Stay posted.

OPTIMUM POSITION/ Part 399 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

If you stand too close to a painting, you see only the broad brush strokes of colour.

If you stand too far back you are unable to see the details.

But at that optimum position you can see enough detail that the composition evokes a Wow!

'Mary's Eyes' closeup

The Director and his team all the way to the social workers who are in regular contact with Paul and Zabeth Bayne are too close to the painting of the Bayne family ordeal and they see only the heavy impaso of the Baynes refusal to acknowledge responsibility for their youngest child's injuries three years ago. They see only the thick application of public exposure. They see their own Ministry overtures as fair and generous and considerate and they view the Baynes as uncooperative. They are so close that they cannot see the nuances of the changing brush strokes over the past three years. They see the Baynes determination, and unwillingness to acquiesce to Ministry pressures.

Mary Polak, Leslie du Toit and all of the associates in Victoria are standing too far away to see the details. They cannot see that the portrait is really not one canvas but a diptych, two canvasses side by side, one showing the distress of a family separated and the other showing the joy at being together. The Victoria viewers have no appreciation for the pathos and expression of this family portrait. They cannot see the pain on the faces or the tears on the cheeks. Nor can they see pleasure on the faces of parents holding their children and happiness on the countenances of the children as they play with one another among the familiar items of home. Nor does Victoria care. And the crew in Victoria stand too far away to see the mistakes that have been making in creating the A side of the diptych while preventing the B side from being realized.

'Mary's Eyes' by Ron Unruh 2010

The premise for the creation of the position of Representative of Children and Youth was that an official should be charged with responsibility to stand at the optimum position in order to view family portraits like that of the Baynes. While the Bayne portrait may not be a classic it nonetheless grabs a viewers attention from across the room and with each step closer it delivers and holds the viewer's attention. We were hoping that the Representative's Office would stand at the optimum position and notice that Side A was not completed and would then conclude that Side A should never have been begun. But that is not the Representative's mandate. We were hoping that the Representative would engage with the idyllic Side B composition and offer an opinion but that is apparently not mandated either. As much as I hate to admit this, this leaves only us, the discerning public to stand at the optimum place to see both the entire composition as well as the strokes that have achieved these results. If we feel strongly about this portrait we will have to invite countless other people to examine it as well, critics, journalists, news networks, politicians, legislators.

LIZ ARMBRUSTER / Part 388 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

“In what you say of another, apply the test of  kindness, necessity and truth, and let nothing pass your lips without a two-thirds majority.”

That was one of the original thoughts by Liz Armbruster. She was a wife, mother and grandmother. She passed away suddenly and unexpectedly at age 51 on Wednesday September 29, 2009. She was much loved and she was a good thinker and she had a wonderfully-written blog In Search of the Empty Nest. http://armbruster1.blogspot.com/

Perhaps her most quoted original thought is this: “I brought children into this dark world because it needed the light that only a child can bring.”

Zabeth Bayne is bringing another child into the world. The world needs the light of this child. It will be a boy and his name has already been decided.

The way I see it, MCFD has absolutely no business being involved in this unborn child's life, or this child's life upon birth. But MCFD is seeking to do so. We have the evidences. Any attempt at involvement at the moment is harassment and if it occurs after the child is born and the other three children have been returned to the Baynes it will be nothing but vindictiveness. Even now this invasion is liable to be brought to the Representative of Children and Youth. It should not be assumed that attention will not be paid now. In fact, while this case concerning the continuing care of the three children waits for the decision of Judge Thomas Crabtree, I can say that MCFD should never have been involved with the lives of the Baynes' two sons. Those boys should never have been in government sponsored care for these past three years. Imagine Lawyer Finn Jensen arguing for his client, MCFD, to have all three children, two boys and a daughter removed permanently, when earlier in the same year he had advised his client (and it's on record) that he and MCFD could not win a case with regard to the boys because there was insufficient evidence. His client would not listen to that advice. So Jensen sallied forth to press the unwinnable case anyway. In the process he threw muck through which Judge Crabtree must mentally tramp.

MCFD's behaviour in this case, at least the local MCFD chapter has been reprehensible, vicious, deplorable, condemnable. One descriptive word will not suffice. MCFD not just locally is at fault because MCFD Victoria, the Minister's Office and the Deputy Minister's Office have been well apprised of this case and nevertheless remained detached. Or, perhaps the head honchos told the locals, “Win this thing at any cost!” Whether Victoria was silent or cheering, it has been disappointing behaviour too. It is one thing to say a comment is not permitted when the case is before the court. It is quite another response to endorse in private communication or by silence the conduct of a regional office when that conduct could destroy an innocent family and when the outcome will surely be something for which Polak and Dutoit have to answer down the road. Polak of course will be the one who faces the press. Her answers under fire have been curt and clinical. She will likely ask for a different ministry post when Falcon wins the Liberal premier candidacy. Good governance is not something that we have seen from MCFD with regard to Paul and Zabeth Bayne and their children. For the countless other families, I wish I had assurance that an NDP government would give us something better. NDP's track record with MCFD is similarly grievous. It's a dismal picture. 

Zabeth brings a child into into this dark world because it needs the light that only this child can bring.”

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.

I KNOW YOU CAN DO THIS/ Part 350 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

I know foster parents personally. Over a period of many years I have watched these foster parents that I know do a praiseworthy job of raising someone else's children. I know adoptive parents whose families have been comprised of children born to someone else yet who were integrated with such love that it was seamless. I applaud excellent foster parents and superior adoptive parents. They transform unfortunate life events into redemptive rescues and recoveries.

This blogsite is not designed to castigate or demean foster or adoptive parents and families.

I know competent social workers who dedicate themselves to effective responsible work. Knowing them has caused me to conclude that the dominant motivation for people who embark upon a career in social work is the unmistakable desire to help people with social needs. They desire and they receive training to provide a variety of resources to people with social difficulties within the target population in which they work. They have access to and they may collaborate with other social care organizations and government institutions as mediators and consultants.

We are all proud of our province

This blogsite is not designed to rebuke or humiliate social workers whether at the front line or in a supervisory role.

Listen, I could do this all day. I know as friends, doctors and lawyers and people in law enforcement and I am certain that almost everyone who enters these professions do so with laudable intentions. This blog is not designed to reprimand or offend any who spend their lives in these fields.

However, it may sometimes appear that this blog is merely a vehicle for disseminating vitriol to scar people employed in positions to which I have alluded above, because child protection activities at the heart of these daily written communications have bred such wrath and anguish, not in me personally, but in those for whom and about whom I write. Further, my thoughts provide opportunity for the wounded to respond and they do, often with words directed like a scatter gun at everyone in the fields related to their damaged lives. Everyone who is suspected of being responsible for disrupting and interfering and even ruining a family becomes a target for a verbal blast.

You see, I also know personally, people whose children should never have been held from their parents for as long a period as has been the case. I know parents who have not received from social workers a respect and compassion we would associate with their professions. I know parents who have been handled with disinterest, discourtesy and cruelty by healthcare and legal and law enforcement persons.

So you will have to excuse what appears to be an occasional outburst or an overstep of civility because YOU HAVE NOT BEEN LISTENING. Ms. Polak, Ms. Du Toit, Ms. Turpel-Lafond, Mr. Campbell, Mr. de Jong, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Fitzimmons, Mr. Jensen, Mr. Gulbot, Mr. Humeny, there are parents and children who are not being heard. Attention must be paid to a countless number of parents who are powerless to recover their families because an entire ministry and legal system is charged with a mandate that can be deemed counter productive to the objectives of these disenfranchised parents. In so many of these cases, the best interests of the children is being misunderstood and misinterpreted. I am begging you to begin to listen to their heart cries. This province needs to become proactive, a trail blazer in reform of child protection policy and practice. I know that you can do this.

INFORMED AND CONFOUNDED / Part 284 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

My primary purpose for the blog when I began was to expose what I believed was an injustice upon a family with whom I was acquainted, the Baynes.

The writing process required research which has been educational for me. The information has also been disturbing to me.

The unspeakable terror of being accused of harming one's own child when in fact that was untrue, and the confiscation not only of the one child to whom this harm was allegedly done, but all three of one's children was so repugnant that I could not tolerate the thought that we have a Ministry that would condone this and then keep the children for over two years without sorting it out. It is almost three years now.

What I have learned is that conjoined to the removal of children as the first line of solution to suspected abuse or neglect, is a legal establishment comprised of clever, cold-eyed lawyers who defend the actions of Ministry personnel using the files and reports compiled by social workers some of whom have abandoned integrity.

What is more troubling to me is that my acquaintances are not a unique case but merely a sample of scores more families whose lives were interrupted or forever altered in British Columbia. Then I discovered that in every province, the governments' initiatives to protect children has resulted in similar miscarriages of rights and freedoms and reputations and privacies. Further, a virtual worldwide pandemic of absurdities within the child welfare programs of nations is destroying families.

I am confounded that our own Minister of Children and Deputy Minister of Children and Ombudsman and ranking Ministry officers, when reviewing the same data to which I have access, are not themselves questioning and speaking to how Child Welfare agencies can fulfill their mandate effectively without leaving these lengthy trails of tragedy and heartache.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS WITHDRAWN / Part 195 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

I take no pleasure in writing this. I wish it was different. The people of British Columbia are irate, disgusted and distrustful of the Ministry of Children and Family Development but most particularly with the people who manage it, Ministry Polak and her deputy du Toit. They are the government, and people would jettison this government now if there was a chance. I am not making this up. Comments left on my blog are smoldering. Comments on CBC's story are a unanimous inferno. Everyone is tired of this continuous cirque de la critique. We want to be governed by people whom we can respect and from whom we can expect consistent candor and honesty, civility and mercy.

As expected Mary Polak is wearing the bulls-eye and is taking the hits from the public and the press. Cynical and scathing remarks announce her incompetence and call for her dismissal now or her election defeat later. She is being journalistically stripped of her Honorable dignity and she may be undeserving. She is a genuinely good person.

What she may merit is an outstanding performance award to be given at the ACTRA Award ceremony in February 2011. She has been playing her role perfectly and following the script to the letter. She has pretended that she has power and is in control. Her Deputy has that. She has been defending her Deputy Ministry Leslie du Toit with whom Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond had the difficulties that hit the news fan this week. The ACTRA may be grand consolation for Polak because it is possible by that time, that Campbell will shuffle Polak out of this position if du Toit pulls another ill advised stunt that Polak must defend. Of course I have seen Mary Polak being interviewed, defending the actions of her Deputy Minister. I have listened to her controlled and calm answers. She has little choice. Du Toit is not accountable to her. Polak inherited du Toit who was one of Campbell's favourites. She was an import brought in to transform an impaired MCFD. She has expertise in child welfare whereas Polak does not. Polak can be told anything. She is a politician in no position to dispute with a seasoned senior level civil servant. If someone should be receiving scrutiny it is du Toit who has exhibited exceptional guardedness, even unwillingness to disclose MCFD information as manifested by the uncooperative posture that took the MCFD to court last week. That court ruling must be an embarassment because the amendment notion was a bonehead move politically. Of course then we heard the immediate post ruling defiance that government/MCFD would still seek the legislative change that could inhibit the Representative of Children and Youth.

Someone used some common sense yesterday. A wise decision on Wednesday. CBC ran the story at 3:15 PM informing the people of B.C. that senior public servant Allan Seckel released a letter saying that the government will withdraw the amendment that would restrict children's rep. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's access to cabinet documents. Interestingly, the letter was addressed to former judge Ted Hughes, who on Monday wrote an open letter to Premier Campbell asking him to do precisely what the Seckel letter expresses. Hughes took his unusual step because of his concern that the necessary watchdog office of children's representative would be compromised or rendered powerless by MCFD's proposed amendment. The representative was one of the many recommendations Hughes made to the Premier in his 2006 review of the MCFD. Campbell agreed in 2006 that this objective and independent set of eyes was crucial to the integrity and effectiveness of the Ministry.

Read more: And read people's comments after the CBC article

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

TURPEL LAFOND IS OUR MCFD WATCHDOG / Part 189 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

In the words of Ralph W. Sockman, “The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.”

Minority player Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is demonstrating a level of courage that should evoke in the public a rush of confidence and support because she is taking the Ministry of Children and Family Development to court for a justifiable reason. That government ministry with the majority hand, recently acted in a manner that may be an embarrassment. MCFD system operations are well secreted from public eyes and Turpel-Lafond is our watchdog.

After years of performance questions and criticism, the MCFD was reviewed by a select group chaired by Hon. Ted Hughes a few years ago. Among his many recommendations in the Children and Youth Review was the creation of the Office of an objective representative for children and youth. Mr. Hughes was convinced that an independent officer of the legislature could provide valuable perspective on child services and help to improve British Columbia’s child-serving system. The Review was quite critical of the management of the Ministry of Children and Family Development yet Mr. Hughes was powerfully supportive of the work of front-line child welfare workers employed by MCFD.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is British Columbia’s first Representative for Children and Youth. The mandate of her office is articulated in its own act, the Representative for Children and Youth Act. The Act presents a range of powers, duties and functions. There are four sections. • provide advocacy services for vulnerable children and youth and their families respecting designated services. • investigate critical injuries and deaths of children receiving child welfare services. • monitor and evaluate services to children, youth and their families to ensure their effectiveness and responsiveness, and thereby raising the degree to which the child-serving system is accountable publicly. • Finally, conduct evidence-based research that enables us to make recommendations aimed at enhancing the future development and delivery of services for vulnerable children and youth in BC.

Her office is in our (the Public's) best interests. She is B.C.’s independent child welfare watchdog. Candidly her role should be regarded as being in the government's best interests if it wants to enhance so many levels of its service to our communities. Yet Ms. Turpel-Lafond is compelled to fight for her independence right now. When B.C.’s independent child welfare rep. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond sought cabinet documents to complete an audit, the BC Liberal government introduced legislation denying her access. She filed a court petition last Tuesday saying she had hit the wall in her efforts to get government information she needs to gauge how well protected children are in B.C.

Children’s Minister Mary Polak called the petition a “waste of scarce resources” and said Turpel-Lafond’s access would be blocked unless she signs a “protocol agreement” on confidentiality — an agreement Turpel-Lafond refuses to sign. Come on Ms. Polak, don't get sucked into this protectionist posture. Who is advising you?

You should read the stories all over the press and online ….
- In the Coquitlam Now News , May 12th article “Information critical to protecting kids”
- “Minister defends decision on access to documents” Access granted to B.C.'s representative for children is 'unprecedented': Polak By Jennifer Moreau, Burnaby Now May 12, 2010
- Children's rep is fighting for independence”, By Paul Willcocks, Times Colonist May 12, 2010
- B.C.'s child-welfare watchdog gets early court date for petition against B.C. Government", By Rob Shaw, timescolonist.com May 6, 2010 and Vancouver Sun
- WHAT IS MCFD TRYING TO HIDE?, May 03, 2010, Tracey Young, MSW RSW

Paul and Zabeth Bayne – Part 12 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

As of today I am changing the subtitle of these posts from the “The Alarming Case of B.C. Government’s Miscarriage of Justice’ to ‘The Bayne Campaign for Justice.’

Paul and Zabeth Bayne – Part 12 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

Candidly, while Paul and Zabeth and their three children, Kent, Baden and Bethany continue to suffer as a result of this obstruction of justice, there is every reason to focus less on the way our system has failed all five people, specially Bethany, and focus instead upon the victories that will come out of this debacle. The family members will be restored to one another. Some foster care givers will be dropped from the program, or all foster parents will be required to be registered so there is full accountability. Some within the ranks of MCFD will be reassessed and maybe even reassigned. MCFD reforms already envisioned by Lesley Du Toit and Honourable Mary Polak will be prioritized.

If the MCFD Case on the Bayne Family were a table it would have no legs. You can’t then call this legless thing a platform because no one will want to put his weight on what the MCFD has to say in court to justify why a two month old girl has been withheld from her parents until past her second birthday. MCFD will not be able to answer acceptably why they have insisted upon violating the law for so long, contravening the very ACT with which it seeks to serve children’s welfare. When there was no evidence against the Baynes, when the RCMP stepped away from the case, when CT scans, tests and opinions pointed to accidental injury rather than non accidental injury, the early medical suspicion and caution of infant shaking should have reasonably been set aside in deference to the outstanding characters and reputations of two parents committed to God, to family values, to one another, to their children, to decency. MCFD will be unable to adequately explain why it rejected the counsel of its own lawyer who recommended that there was no injury or harm on the boys and no risk and no cause for holding the boys from their parents and yet they are in custody today as if belonging to the state. And some answers need to be forthcoming as to why adult grip marks on children’s limbs and abrasions and rashes and spankings and cold showers have been the Bayne children’s experience within the protective envelope of MCFD.

In so many ways people within the system have been made to feel they need to protect themselves or their jobs or the program or the agency and consequently good parents have been maligned, misjudged, mistreated. Children have been detached and deprived from parental and family relationships and the extent of the scarring of their spirits and minds is unknown but deplorable to contemplate. While we all value the sincere efforts by good people to protect children, there is a line recognized by most others over which good judgement and a commitment to right choices do not take you when doing your job.

I am not contending that MCFD is broken. Far from it. So many dividends accrue to our communities because of the initiatives and services of MCFD. Yet something within MCFD is broken and that must be identified and fixed.