MCFD TENDS TO LEAP TO LITIGATION

Ray Ferris, my writing colleague for GPS (Advocacy Blog) has written another article to the Times Colonist. He himself had a helpful and rewarding career in the Ministry of Children and Family Development dealing justly for children and parents and caregivers. Later as he saw bureaucratic missteps and bungling he became an outspoken critic as well as an advisor.

Look at his latest piece.

MCFD's DEFAULT LEAP TO LITIGATION

            The Clarke government always seems to be willing to spend more on battling its citizens than on helping them. They leap to litigation with no apparent heed for the cost. We know about the big ones like the years taken to lose a dispute with the teachers, the millions covering up the fired health researchers and the six million spent bailing out Basi and Verk. We will never be allowed to know the true cost of all those millions spent battling against families and innocent children in family court.

   

            Suffice it to say that if a family has its children removed under the CF&CSA, they will need at least $200,000 in legal fees to get them back, regardless of the merits f the case. Several cases have cost far more. Parents need deep pockets, a valuable house or a very generous lawyer. The late Doug Christie worked free for the B. case for two years. Hittrich law advanced well over a million. The director was willing to fight for a year in a losing cause and the case still goes on. A Victoria lawyer gave $700,000 worth of service in a case, where the judge had already returned the children under supervision. The director wasted a full week of Hittrichcourt time just quibbling about details of a continued order. What did that cost the taxpayer?

   

            Then there was the little Metis child SS. She was snatched from her Metis foster home over the pleadings of Ms. Turpel-Lafond and sent to strangers. The loving foster parents and extended family spent nearly a million dollars trying to keep her. How much did the taxpayer spend? Now their Metis adoption of her has been legally validated, the director spends more millions battling them and the child in the courts of the North-West-Territories. Sad.

From Ray Ferris. # 105-3900 Shelbourne St., Victoria V8P 4H8,   250 477 5723

MCFD'S DELIBERATE EVASION OF APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE

MCFD'S DELIBERATE EVASION OF APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE

SS is the 3-year old Metis girl who lived with upstanding Metis foster parents in BC since she was 3 days old. These parents wanted to adopt her. MCFD had other plans and waited 3 years to enact them. In order to accomplish the removal of SS from her B.C. foster parents' home and send her to another foster home in Ontario, the Ministry of Children and Family Development purposely, one might say deliberately, took numerous questionable actions. You will read about them here. An unnamed friend has written the following points that I deem to be worth considering.

MCFD purposely disregarded every criterion for assessing a child’s best interests as specified in B.C. legislation and in the B.C. College of Social Workers Standards of Practice;

MCFD purposely disregarded the rights of the birth parents and their written preferences to which attention should be given as specified in B.C. legislation and in the B.C. College of Social Workers Standards of Practice;

MCFD purposely disregarded the written position of the B.C. Metis Federation that opposed the move;

MCFD purposely disregarded specialized opinions of medical and psychological professionals who advised against the move;

MCFD purposely disregarded the excellent record of care by the BC foster family, and the child’s superior development during her first three years with her foster family;

The MCFD fabricated charges against the foster parents, and created sham procedures by which to justify intolerable delays in finalizing a permanent placement for the child, by moving her from her psychological family in B.C. to another foster home with strangers in Ontario.

The MCFD procedure began as an adoption to the Ontario family until faced with the law forbidding this, and ultimately called placement with new foster parents;

MCFD in spite of the move being a fostering relationship have insisted that the child refer to the new foster parents as “mommy and daddy,” while insisting that her de facto psychological parents in B.C. be referred to only by their first names.

MCFD's confused bureaucratic manoeuvrings validated by B.C. Courts, gives the appearance that the Courts are complicit in this flawed and insulting treatment of a vulnerable child.

MCFD ERRED IN MÉTIS CHILD'S CASE

This is the complete document containing four earlier segments that demonstrate how MCFD purposed to send SS from B.C. to ONT., regardless of regulations that should have prevented this action.

MCFD ERRED IN MÉTIS CHILD'S CASE

What influenced the Director of the Ministry of Children and Family Development to arrive at the decision to remove an almost three-year-old girl named SS from her Métis foster parents in B.C. with whom she has been since birth, in order to send her to live with non-Metis parents in Ontario, where her two Métis siblings live? Let's begin with the foundation that each of the two placement options in this case, the BC home and the Ontario home are good homes for this child.

That last sentence may reveal the decisive factor, the genealogical kinship. In this child's case you may agree that it was not enough to justify MCFD's choice. Using the Ministry's own legislated and documented criteria for determining placements, I will now tell you why the MCFD decision was unreasonable, and not in the child's best interests.

First, the regulation states that preference is shown for a placement that permits a child's contact with birth parents in order to enrich the child's sense of identity, provided that birth parents welcome the contact. A beneficial relationship was already established between the child and the birth parents in the same B.C. city during the three years she has lived with the Metis foster parents in B.C. In fact, these birth parents in B.C. are open and have repeatedly begged that the foster parents be allowed to adopt their child. Distance makes it impossible to maintain such quality contact with the family in Ontario and no attempt was made by either Ontario foster parents or birth parents.

Second, consideration is given to the child's physical, intellectual, and emotional needs and to her level of development. A professional appraisal revealed that irreparable damage would result to these aspects of the child's life if a move involved this significant trauma of removal from the foster family and a move to strangers in Ontario. In her B.C. foster home these needs were met for the first thirty months and her development progressed above norms.

Third, is the importance of continuity in care.  In the child's B.C. home, her continuity of care was uninterrupted until MCFD removed her in preparation for her transport to Ontario. That interruption was justified in the belief that the long term benefits of three sisters together will outweigh the loss of these formative years.  

Fourth, is the importance of a positive relationship with a parent as well as a secure sense of being a member of the family. SS was firmly established in her B.C. family consisting of foster mom and dad and older grown children. When the decision to move the child was being considered by MCFD and when BC foster parents contested this before the court in 2016, the child had no relationship with the prospective adoptive parents in Ontario or the two older Métis sibling sisters whom SS had never met. There was then and there may still be a high probability that a 'positive relationship' cannot develop with the other sibling girls.

Fifth, is the importance of preserving the child's cultural identity. The Ontario parental couple has not been in a position to preserve Métis culture. In distinction the B.C. foster family are committed to the preservation of the child's Métis identity and have taken steps to encourage this. The B.C. Metis Federation has been active and outspoken in their support of the child being kept with her Métis family and with part of the Métis community in her home province.

Sixth is the preservation of the child's cultural, racial, linguistic and spiritual heritage. The Ontario parents, upright and well intentioned for SS, are not themselves of Métis heritage.  With respect to their two adopted Métis sisters, no evidence exists of a continuing identification with the Métis community. There is no reason to believe that SS can have her heritage preserved in her new home. In the B.C. foster family, LM, the foster mom has Métis cultural heritage, and she and the child were well connected to the B.C. Métis Federation, community life and ceremonies. Furthermore, the Métis birth father is in Victoria and easily accessible.

Seventh, is consideration of the effect on the child because of a delay in making a decision about her future. Delays were created by the MCFD's repeated extensions of a Temporary Care Order (TCO), as though this was a probationary period for the foster parents and the foster child. Yet the child came to LM and RB when she was three days old and was with them for almost three years and no probationary period was required, and she could have been adopted to these foster parents as they requested, except for the Director’s refusal to consider this. 

Eighth, is the Parenting Capacity of each parenting couple. Both parenting couples enjoy reputations as good and responsible parents.  In Ontario, both parents have full-time jobs and the two sibling sisters have special needs. In B.C. both parents are employed full time but at home, and the mother (LM) is certified in ECE and Infant and Toddler Care and Special Needs.

Ninth, consideration is given to the other members of a family, the extended family. I have no information about the Métis sisters' interaction with extended family members of the Ontario family. In the B.C. foster family there are two older sisters and two older brothers.  These sisters are committed to the care of SS and one of them has certification in childcare. One of the brothers is particularly attached to SS and she to him.

Tenth, is the matter of the siblings, and the possible value or merit of seeing all three placed together. Most jurisdictions recognize that when two or more bonded siblings are in need of placement, for whatever unfortunate circumstance, a humane consideration requires that their trauma not be increased by splitting them up into separate homes. This situation does not apply to SS.  The two “biological” sibling sisters were born in Ontario and have been total strangers to SS, who was born in B.C. when her birth parents moved there. One professional opinion states that there is high probability/risk that there will be failure to bond and failure therefore of adoption. In this regard, LM and RB expressed commitment to helping SS meet her siblings when she would be deemed stable in her present B.C. home and able to understand the nature of such a meeting.

Eleventh, is the matter of Territoriality/regionality.  LM and RB as well as the birth parents live in B.C. where the child named SS was born.  The B.C. Adoption Act requires placement of a child in B.C. In order to affect the move to Ontario, MCFD manipulated existing legislation. The only language used by the MCFD for many months was “adoption”. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Adoption Act means what it says, and that adoption of a B.C. child cannot legally occur in another province, and by residents of another province, the MCFD abruptly changed its language to “guardianship” in Ontario, and later to a “foster parent agreement.”  Surprisingly, the B.C. Courts have accepted this deviation by the MCFD. While initially, SS has been sent to Ontario as a foster child with foster parents, the clear intention is that she will be adopted under Ontario Adoption legislation and with that comes loss of control by B.C. Further, the understanding is that B.C. must reimburse Ontario for a monthly supplementary grant to adoptive parents for this out of province sibling. 

MCFD OPINION ABOUT ABORIGINAL ADOPTION? MERE WORDS, WRITTEN BUT IGNORED

I am going to tell you how MCFD disregards its own policies to the injury of a three-year-old child. I will inform you that MCFD has successfully exempted itself from following the law.

Right here on the B.C. government's own website is the page that speaks about adoption of aboriginal children. The lead paragraph states, "Aboriginal children in care need homes with Aboriginal families whenever possible – to help them stay connected with their extended family and community."

That social interest feature is precisely what took place three years ago when LM and RB were asked to take SS into their home when she was a newly born three day old baby girl of Métis biological parentage. LM is Métis and she and RB, her husband, are members of the BC Métis Federation. 

Then the B.C. Website speaks about an Aboriginal Custom Adoption with these value features, such as custom adoption "makes it possible for Aboriginal families, organizations and communities to use a culturally appropriate way of planning for Aboriginal children." Not only that, but the government explanation also states such a Custom Adoption "respects the customs and traditions of the First Nations and/or Aboriginal community of the child," and "ensures Aboriginal children maintain their cultural, linguistic and spiritual identity." Of course, and that too is precisely what LM and RB did when SS's biological parents asked them to be the child's adoptive parents (Custom adoption). Done.

To persons who are now deemed adoptive parents by virtue of the Custom Aboriginal Adoption provision, the government advises them to get a lawyer to help them with an application to have their Custom adoption recognized by the Supreme Court. Taking that advice LM and RB made application for a formally recognized adoption. All is well one would think. The government should be pleased with the progress of this case that is clearly in the best interest of the child.  Not so.  Because the government had a different plan for SS.

MCFD social workers, several months into the fostering program expressed a plan to adopt the child out of province to a non-Métis, non-aboriginal couple in Ontario. Well, guess what! That is not supposed to happen. But it did. It happened to SS's two older sisters years earlier in Ontario.  The Ontario Children's Aid Society placed the two Métis girls in a non- Métis home. The birth parents eventually moved to B.C. where SS was born three years ago.  The Children's Aid in Ontario and the MCFD of BC struck an arrangement, colluded, to have the little girl known as SS join the two sisters in Ontario.  It is unlawful to send an aboriginal child outside the province of B.C. Has anyone spoken publicly about that? Have any news sources picked up on that? Well certainly the BC Métis Federation spoke against this injustice. Yet what about the other Métis organizations and agencies including the Métis Commission for Children and Families of BC, the Island Métis Children and Family Services Society and the Métis Nation British Columbia? What did each of these three do? They supported the MCFD plan. Why? There is a story there. Can you smell it? I will get to that in a day or two. And why don't judges flag injustice that is as flagrant as this?

BY ALL MEANS look up the little girl's Facebook page ‘Bring Home Baby S’, and the two websites that tell her story, bringsshome.ca or bringsshome.com. 

SS IS MÉTIS. WHY WASN'T THAT RESPECTED?

You know the girl's story don't you? News networks across the country carried it for several months as the foster parents fought the MCFD in court for good reason. The case is saturated with cultural issues because S.S. is Métis. So is her foster mother Métis.

The term "Métis" derives originally from the French adjective metis that referred to something that was half of one thing and half of another, and then subsequently, referred to someone whose father and mother were of different races, or mixed-race. The Métis are a specific indigenous people group initially developed as the mixed-race descendants of unions between First Nations people and early European settlers.  Over time in Canada, many mixed-race people married within their own group, maintaining contact with their indigenous culture. A distinct and unique culture was developed. Métis are recognized by the Federal government as a segment of the aboriginal community of Canada.

As far as the birth parents and the foster parents were concerned, according to Métis customs, L.M and her husband RB had adopted S.S. That arrangement occurred soon after the child's birth. S.S. has lived with her mom and dad (foster parents) since she was three days old. This is her family. As I described yesterday, she was adopted by virtue of an Aboriginal Custom Adoption, a provision made possible by B.C. legislation. MCFD knows that.

This Métis heritage is a significant factor in this case.

That underscores the offense that the Métis and specifically the foster parents of S.S. feel, that no consultation occurred that demonstrated respect for either Métis culture and practice or wishes or for the Children and Family for that matter. Despite the objections of the BC Métis Federation that continues to protest the relocation of the Métis foster child to a non-Métis family in Ontario, the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) removed her from the Métis foster parents, who have cared for this little girl for the past 3 years, and who had applied for formal adoption of the child already legally adopted by Aboriginal Custom adoption.

BY ALL MEANS look up the little girl's Facebook page ‘Bring Home Baby S’, and the two websites that tell her story, bringsshome.ca or bringsshome.com.  

LITTLE MÉTIS MISS S.S.

She is in Ontario now. She is with a family consisting of a new mom and dad and two biological siblings older than herself. She is three years old. This is brand new to her, an experience that is two weeks old. On one hand it seems good and right that she would be united with two true sisters. Clearly that is what was in the minds of the Director and caseworkers of the Ministry of Children and Families of British Columbia well over one year ago when they began this protracted process, litigation really. It involved orders filed, hearings, appeals, court appearances.

There is another story, another perspective and that's the one I will take some time to unpack. I will begin the info download today. I have written earlier, so let me rehearse the essential account. Since S.S. was two days old, she lived with foster parents. Neither the girl nor her foster parents may be named because of a publication ban. She is referred to in public documents as S.S. Her biological parents were pleased to see her in the care of these foster parents. Her mom and dad are Métis and of the fostering couple, foster mom is also Métis. Foster mom and dad loved S.S. and theirs is the only home she has known. They are her family. That may sound naïve. However, a Métis arrangement was conducted whereby the foster parents were regarded in the Métis community as the true parents of S.S.

It must be understood that the girl's new parents are non-aboriginal.

Foster mom and dad learned one year ago that the MCFD intended to move the child to the Ontario family. Yes, at three years of age. In late September after the foster parents had exhausted all legal channels, S.S. was removed from them, kept in another foster setting as legalities dragged on and then as October approached, she was put on an airplane and flown with her new family to their home in Ontario.

You can read more of S.S.'s story on a Facebook page ‘Bring Home Baby S’. 

and at either of two websites bringsshome.ca or bringsshome.com.