VIRTUAL VISITATION / Part 370 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

This is something which perhaps in a short time will become actual in divorce settlements, and I see no reason why parents embroiled with the Ministry of Children and Family Development should not already move forward to gain this privilege as well. I think that every parent whose child has been removed should consider making this request to the judge, not only for scheduled visitation but for scheduled 'virtual visitation'.

I am using the information provided in an article written by Misty Harris of Postmedia News November 16, 2010 at 9:15 AM and published in the Ottawa Citizen and Vancouver Sun and a host of other news sources.

Photograph by: File photo, Postmedia News

Today, parents whose children have been removed into care by the government are often awarded visitation privileges consisting of a number of hours per week. Perhaps in the near future, parents may request a judge's order to the Child Protective unit to include 'virtual visitation' each night before bedtime, so that mommy and or daddy may say goodnight to their child or children. It can be a virtual tuck them into bed at night. MCFD and CPS will hate and oppose this innovation since an aspect of the removal agenda must necessarily be to reduce the child's reliance upon and affection for the biological parent(s). Foster parents will find this troublesome to a degree. But it will come.

Ms. Harris' story calls this a “digital leap in parental rights.” She writes about it in the context of divorce settlements and video chatting may soon become the right and not merely a privilege for some Canadian parents. Six American states already include virtual visitation in their legislation and in Canada, courts are routinely ordering this plugged-in parenting option on a case-by-case basis across our country when a divorced parent lives some distance from the child's residence. It is anticipated that 'virtual visitation' will become enshrined in the language of divorce settlements so that broken families will be subject to court orders that facilitate parent-child Skype calls and instant messaging at scheduled times. It will become a fixture in custodial agreements.

As we hear so often, the compelling factor is the best interest of the child. The visual immediacy of a web-cam chat is very beneficial to a child. Clearly, if a parent has abused a child and a child is fearful, a judge is not going to order a regular web-cam visit. But where the contest is clearly between a protection agency and the parents and a child thrives by actual visits with parents, a virtual visit will be viewed as constructive for the relationship and the future of the family. Shouldn't that be what MCFD and any CPS agency is concerned to achieve?