Showing posts with label MP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MP. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

If you want to Encourage Reform to our Child Welfare / Part 207 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Many of you have expressed in various tones your conviction that serious changes must be made to the protection component of our B.C. child welfare system. Some of you write from a personal experience of great anguish. Living through months and even years without your children, or worse, never having the children returned. I do think that you have an opportunity to make a difference. You have a story. I don't. I merely have a sensitive sympathy meter and a ready pen. I believe that if you are going to take the challenge there are some things that must be done well. Some of you cannot do this. You are still too angry. This is about affecting change not merely scoring your point. Someone has to do the following and perhaps that someone is you. If enough someones become involved in a proactive movement, perhaps the needed changes can occur.

1.Contact your Member of Parliament. The members comprise the body that has created the framework within which the Ministry of Children operates. When you have identified the primary solution that mean the most to you and will benefit most children and parents affected by Ministry involvement, approach one of these lawmakers.
2.Contact the Media. MCFD is sensitive to media coverage as we have discerned even recently when the Representative for Children and Youth took the government to court. MCFD responds predictably with over zealousness when there has been a child fatality while in care or some abuse in a foster care facility. A change in media coverage, like more of it, more scrupulous investigative journalling can change MCFD operations. For that reason among the people you may want to contact are (1) reporters who regularly cover child welfare items; or (2) the news editor for network stations or news magazines; or even (3) the editorial board of these outlets.
3.Capitalize on Media Opinion Pages. Letters to the editor opportunities invite the kind of comment you desire to make. Make sure you work smartly, writing only 100-250 words. That means thinking clearly about one central point regardless of how many points you could or would like to make. Pay attention to news/media guidelines and stick to them. Enough of these over time makes a point. And if you write to correct a prior statement, simply set the record straight rather than question the journalist's motives.
4.Use the Comment Section of News Agency Websites. News organization welcome comments at the end of stories. No one knows how many people read the comments, and of course because anonymity conceals the writers, some deliver vile and personal attacks. When you find a discussion that is civilized, enter in to make a comment. Keep your focus on the issues.
5.What to Seek in Respect to either MPs or Journalists. Ask for a personal face to face meeting. Make an initial approach by e-mail preferably but it can be by letter and in this explain how the system is harming those whom it is intended to help. Ask for a meeting to speak about possible solutions. Don't get lost telling your own story or accuse anyone in the system of being immorally motivated. Simply give an overview of how your child(ren) are being harmed. When a reply is not forthcoming within a few days follow it up with a fresh email and if time passes again make it a phone call in the morning. If you obtain a meeting it will be brief, at most fifteen minutes. You must be well prepared with your most important points. You can have a written organized document ready to hand to the host.
6.Whatever you do avoid the 'gestapo' references or anything that blows your credibility out of the water and in fact makes legislators and reporters angry.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

For Love and For Justice / Part 94 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne


An original song entitled ‘Justice’ written by Tom Simanek and Rob Elliott is performed by Rob Elliott in dedication to the struggle to reunite families that have been shattered by the family courts. A video using this song’s lyrics has been prepared by Linda McDermott, Dave Ellison, Shaun O'Connell, Layton Bevan and Julia Langmaid. You can listen and watch this on YouTube at this link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkWQDWnsyfw

Justice

The race-car bed is empty,
no toys are on the floor,
not many changes you can see...
but Johnny doesn't live here,
doesn't live here any more...
never coming through that door.

Feel what I feel
my heart bleeds...
Show me mercy,
hear me plead...
Give me justice,
give me justice,
It's what I need.

A scrap of legal paper,
an expert testifies,
the child you love is taken...
but justice doesn't live here,
doesn't live here, it's a lie...
nothing you can do but cry.

Feel what I feel
my heart bleeds...
Show me mercy,
hear me plead...
Give me justice,
give me justice,
It's what I need.

A judgement not of Solomon,
no wisdom in the words,
and after all is said and done...
your Johnny doesn't live here,
doesn't live here and what's worse...
nothing lives here but the hurt.
Nothing lives here but the hurt.

Feel what I feel
my heart bleeds...
Show me mercy,
hear me plead...
Give me justice,
give me justice,
It's what I need.


copyright 2009 Simanek/Elliott

Thursday, December 10, 2009

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."