GOOD FOSTER PARENTS WANT THEIR FOSTER CHILDREN TO HAVE RIGHTS

"The bare facts of the case are quite enough to convince me that the director has shown very bad judgement in your case. It is the old story. The director is so scared that something unexpected might come up and bite him or her that there is an overreaction to every situation. "

POLITICS AND CHILD PROTECTON

Is it the responsibility of our government to protect children? Yes, I believe our expectation of democratically elected officials is that they will formulate policy and practice that builds protection for the vulnerable members of our community. Therefore, we must accede to the wisdom of state responsibility for apprehending into public care those children who are being neglected or abused within their own families. There must be suitable criteria for child apprehension and acceptable obligations attached to such action.

When you consider the political future of British Columbia, the rapid decline of favourability of the Liberal Party and our premier Christy Clark, and the mounting support for the New Democrats and increasing popularity of the Conservatives, you must determine which party will deliver the best child protection platform. Do journalists ever ask candidates about their convictions and policies concerning this area of our community life? I have rarely heard this subject addressed. It is not on the front burner of public consciousness. Only those of you who have been troubled by Ministry of Children are acutely aware of the importance of a political party’s view on child welfare and child protection. If you have been directly affected by what you perceive to be intrusive and imperious action against you as a parent, then you are looking for a political candidate who will seek to understand and advocate for you. Is your current MLA a listener? An advocate? A sensitive and informed representative concerning child welfare and child protection?  

To Whom Can you Complain? / Part 402 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

I would like to know whether any of you who are reading today, have had occasion formally to make a complaint about the ministry. We are told that this is possible. When you have concerns about the care of your child in the foster care program or a concern about a social worker, you are entitled to make this complaint known. Have you ever done this? When it is a complaint about a social worker or when you cannot make contact with the SW, you are encouraged to speak with that SW's supervisor. Of course, to do that, you may have to ask the social worker for the name and phone number of their supervisor. Has that worked? And of course you can write a letter of your concern directly to the social worker with a copy to the supervisor and request reconsideration of a decision or action. Have you done this? Beyond that, the Ministry of Children does have a complaint resolution process for which you may call at no charge to 1-877-387-7027 asking for the dispute resolution consultant in your area. Have you tried that and if so, how did it go? When that is unhelpful, you can call the Board of Registration for Social Workers of BC. Their phone number is (604) 737-4916 (in Vancouver). If the social worker is registered with that board, you can file a complaint with them. Some people turn to their MLA, elected representative (Member of the Legislative Assembly). Have you done this? You might contact your Ombudsman if you are getting help nowhere else, by calling (250) 387-5855 (in Victoria) or 1-800-567-3247 (elsewhere in BC; call no charge). You may ask for this help. Have you called that number? When your complaint is about the care being received in a foster situation by your child, call the Representative for Children and Youth of BC. The phone number is (250) 356-0831 (in Victoria) or 1-800-476-3933 (elsewhere in BC; call no charge). E-mail them at cyo@gov.bc.ca.

The Baynes have done all of this unsuccessfully over the course of three years.

(If you missed it on Tuesday when he wrote it, catch Ray Ferris's comment on this same theme.)  If it's as bleak as Ray described it, we are in a deep hole.

DESTROY OR REFORM/ Part 389 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

If you can't shut down MCFD then reform it. What do you think about that?

While VOCA (Voices of Children Alliance) derives from concerns over child protection in Ontario, we have already learned that the concerns there are identical to those in all provinces, including British Columbia.

This link takes you to a fascinating page on the VOCA site that is highly supportive to families where the MCFD has intercepted normal family life and removed children for a variety of reasons. It begins with the assertion that the Child Protection system that operates in B.C. needs to be abolished. Then, given the reality that the political will is unprepared to destroy CPS, a second alternative is to introduce reforms to policy and to the legal system. There is even a section that speaks about harmful reform suggestions, a few of which some of you may have recommended.

Following an insightful preliminary paragraph, a content table is provided and then each of the titles on that index is opened up with well developed thoughts. It is worth a read.

For instance you find in the opener entitled “Reform for Children's Aid,” the following statements.

“The only real remedy for the abuses of the child protection system is its abolition. No one should have the power to take children from their parents by force of arms, and the upkeep of children should not be paid with appropriated funds. Once the child protection behemoth is dead, private charity can easily handle the small load of orphaned children, as it responded to the much larger number of homeless children a century ago before the creation of the welfare state.”

“Since the political will to eliminate the child protection system is nowhere near to realization, we have here a list of lesser reforms that may alleviate the hardships in the current system, and lead toward more comprehensive reforms. This list includes all known suggestions for reform, most politically impractical, some that are useless, and a few that might aggravate the current problems. The suggestions are more to stimulate discussion than legislation. Do not waste effort mailing the list to your MPP. The suggestions are organized into policy reforms, reforms to the legal system, and dubious reforms that may do more harm than good.”

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 54 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

A BARRELL FULL OF SAWDUST

Ray Ferris is himself a former social worker and now an outspoken advocate for reform of the MCFD as well as a critic of present procedure. He has not only carefully followed the injustices of the Bayne case and is assisting them in their case to recover their children, but he comments here to the Baynes on Tuesday’s Pre-Trial court proceedings. This is his note in its entirety and the bold lines are his. With Mr. Ferris' permission Zabeth forwarded this to every MLA, MP, the RCY office, Gordon Campbell, Attorney General, Mary Polak and the Prime Ministers office. They have received other mailings before as well.

"Thank you for the information on the court pretrial conference of Dec 8th.

I understand the following points. 1. The Ministry of Children and Family development, through counsel admits that there is no evidence at all of physical or emotional abuse to the boys. 2. The Ministry through counsel acknowledges that their whole case rests on the opinion of Dr. Colbourne that Bethany was shaken. 3.Thus it follows that the only relevant evidence is that which tests the validity of Dr. Colbourne's opinion.

We can also note that it is now approximately 18 months since contrary expert opinions were submitted to the Ministry for presentation to Dr. Colbourne and since they were discussing her reaction and the possibility of finding an independant expert. During that time the director has failed to produce a written response from Dr. Colbourne to the experts' reports and he has failed to produce the independant report so long under discussion.

You express perplexity that the director proposes to call so many witnesses who have no relevant evidence to give on the main contention that Bethany was shaken. You also cannot understand why they would not put on the main witness (Colborne) first. It would after all seem to be the obvious and responsible thing to put on their key witness at the start. Then if examination and cross-examination show that her evidence is not convincing, it might seem to the judge to be redundant to call other witnesses who really have no relevant evidence to give.

There is a very simple answer to this. The director's lawyer told him in January 2008 and again in July 2008 that the case was weak and unlikely to succeed with proper defense. The lawyer at that time advised the director to return the two boys as there was no evidence of risk. The director did not follow his lawyer's advice, nor did he rebut the advice. What seems to have happened is that the director was unable to make up his mind what to do and as the months slipped by in indecision his position became increasingly untenable. It became too late to return the boys without looking quite foolish. It would by this time be incongruous to ask for a temporary order. So the only way to save face was to go ahead and ask for a continuing care order. Knowing the case was weak, he hoped to bolster his slender evidence by throwing in a lot of witnesses as a show of force.

Put in the most simple and blunt terms, this case is no longer about child welfare, or the best interests of your children, but it is about saving the bureaucrats from embarrassment.

All the additional witnesses have no substantive evidence and they are a smokescreen to conceal the weakness of the case. Another way to put it would be that the barrel has been filled with sawdust to conceal the fact that only one small grain of opinion evidence is all that really lies there. This tactic is very costly. It is emotionally draining for you and your family, it prolongs the stay in care without good cause and extends the court time in such a way as to cost taxpayers like myself (and John Fitzsimmons and Andrew Robinson) a bundle.

I would imagine that after yesterday's hearing that Judge Crabtree has a very good idea what is going on and that is why he is keen to get another conference going between him and lawyers only."

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 51 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

MARY POLAK, MINISTER OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

Would you like to see K, B and Baby B returned home permanently before Christmas?

I believe it can be done. If anyone can make this happen outside a court of law, it is Mary Polak. Wouldn’t custody of their children be a wonderful gift to the Baynes? I want you to write a letter to her – a very specific content letter. Or make a phone call.Here is the reason.

Mary is the MLA for Langley and more importantly to Paul and Zabeth Bayne she is the Minister of Children and Family Development and the Minister Responsible for Child Care. She has a passion for this job. She has a sympathetic spirit and an altruistic commitment.

Conceding to my personal view of divine orchestration, it occurs to me that one of the reasons Mary Polak is in this appointed office is to facilitate the return of these children to their parents.

On her website, there are five tabs at the top of the welcome page, one which is entitled ‘How Can We Help?” and another is Entitled “Contact Mary.” That tells us that she and her staff are geared to service people, assist constituents and to help to solve problems. Mary has demonstrated through the years a finely tuned conscience and a sensitivity to the cherished values of her constituency.

I truly believe that we should make the effort on behalf of the Baynes to invite Mary Polak to review the Bayne file and to take the action that I know conscience and justice will demand once everything is considered. Perhaps you will write Mary Polak a letter of appeal. Waste no time.

Now, permit me to guide you. You can write a letter and mail it with a postal address or you can send an email. Mary clearly welcomes both by virtue of her willingness to make her contact information available to us. Make it brief. Don’t’ malign the MCFD. Don’t fault find. Ask her to please review the file and to follow her conscience which you believe will result in her return of the children to their parents. This is one of end results which she herself believes her Ministry is designed to accomplish. Ask her to make this a Christmas gift to remember for the Bayne family and the hundreds of people that support this family.

MARY POLAK'S CONTACT INFORMATION

Offices
Langley Office
#102 - 20611 Fraser Hwy
Langley, BC
V3A 4G4
Phone: (604) 514-8206
Fax: (604) 514-0195
E-Mail: mary.polak.mla@leg.bc.ca

Victoria Office
Room 306
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC
V8W 9E9
Phone: (250) 387-3504
Fax: (250) 387-3420