THE EXCESS OF EMERGENCY CHILD REMOVAL

It's a bureaucratic spectacle. It is recognizable. Even lawyers acknowledge that within a network of social workers, police officers and judges who make the hard decisions for emergency child-removals, there is a tendency for these professionals to become self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating in all subsequent child protective proceedings. Where are the checks and balances, the accountability, the investigatory due diligence, particularly when it is also statistically evidenced that each day that a child lives in a foster care environment is another day closer to the termination of all parental rights. In a just system, good and responsible parents despite economic, emotional or relational challenges would be identified, would not be cut off from their children and would not lose in their lives, what is most precious to them. There is so much that a just child protection system can do to assist parents to raise their children safely and happily rather than to take the children away.

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE FAMILY IS BEING DECONSTRUCTED? (part 3 of 3)

Do you think this is happening, that is, the deconstruction of the family in the name of promoting the welfare and safety of the child? Is it unreasonable to pose this question? Does it sound like the query of a paranoid author? I don’t see it as an irrational question because I am no longer a young parent with young children but I am a concerned observer of societal and governmental behaviour.

The legal rights of families and parents are being redefined under our noses.

FAMILY AUTONOMY IN LIGHT OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS (part 2 of 3)

Are ‘human freedom’ and ‘human dignity,’ values that we want to preserve here in Canada? Do I hear a unanimous and audacious “YES!” Do we want to preserved them here in British Columbia?

If so, then why? I can venture an answer. Because among other benefits that family autonomy achieves for us in a free society, are diversity, variety, and multiplicity. Don’t tell me that these are not important to us, to you. Few of us are enchanted by sameness.

FAMILY AUTONOMY, CHILD PROTECTION & PARENTAL RIGHTS (part 1 of 3)

The family is the primary social institution. The family is the primary conservator and transmitter of values, beliefs and traditions. Conservation of family autonomy should be among the most important objectives of provincial and federal governments. This commitment must become evident to Members of the Legislative Assembly of B.C. and to the Ministry of Children and Family Development and to Educators and to Law Enforcement that any intervention into family is like an invasion into its sanctity because it endangers family customs and ideals? Furthermore, parental liberty is fundamental to the concept and function of family.

CIVIL RIGHT & AYN VAN DYK

Civil or human or political rights are rights which rest upon the premise of birthright into a polity or state or society. Conceptually, one’s birth must ensure that a person is a citizen who can fully participate in the civil and political life of that state without experiencing discrimination or repression. Neither government or organizations or individuals must be permitted to infringe upon those basic human rights.

FAMILY AUTONOMY

The family is the primary social institution. Family autonomy you would think should be among the most important objectives of provincial and federal governments. What we have come to understand that parental liberty is fundamental to the concept and function of family. The family is the primary conservator and transmitter of values, beliefs and traditions. Can it not be evident to Members of the Legislative Assembly of B.C. and to the Ministry of Children and Family Development and to Educators and to Law Enforcement that any intervention into family is like an invasion into its sanctity because it endangers family customs and ideals?

Such recognition is underscored by the fact that the autonomy of family is both acknowledged and defended within Canadian human rights documents and international papers of which Canada is a signatory. Such documents seek to protect the rights of families against the intrusions inferred here against what is universally recognized as the natural and essential societal unit. It should be entitled to protection.

PARENTAL LIBERTY (Part Two)

Preserving Family Autonomy

Is it important to you to protect family autonomy?

We live within a society that if not politically polarized is ideologically uninformed and confused. Some opinions express satisfaction at increased government control. Others, equally adamant, are horrified at the infringement upon family autonomy. Only two political parties are represented in the current Legislative Assembly of B.C., the British Columbia Liberal Party and the British Columbia New Democratic Party. There are several other parties that will nominate candidates, one of which, the British Columbia Conservative Party may be able to win seats in the next election. If your affiliation is with one these directions, do you understand to what degree your party of choice values family, family autonomy and parental rights with regard to children’s education and other aspects of child rearing? Do you know how important is parental choice with regard to tax-funded educational curriculum in your party of choice?

The party in power will make a difference. It is certain that family autonomy cannot be taken for granted.

PARENTAL LIBERTY (Part One)

Dispute About Government and Parental Roles

simply an image of a dispaasionate agency leading a child away from family

History tells the story. Historically there has been a vigorous dispute about the relationship between government and the family and certainly with the function and responsibilities assigned to each. Contingent upon the political philosophy, either the family has been seen as servant to the state or the state has been expected to provide for families the required security to accomplish their work as primary caregivers to these citizens of the future.

Tension always exists between the state and its parts. Government institutions should be obliged to be careful to facilitate the function of the family without usurping its proper role. Of course federal and provincial governments have a role to play to ensure children are not threatened by poverty, neglect or abuse but the state must be careful not to trample on the independence of the family. Theoretically the government exists to aid and assist the smaller units rather than to take over their places in a society.

PARENTAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS

If you want to know what a Parental Capacity Assessment is, today's blog post is written by Ray Ferris. Ray had career of 31 years service in child welfare and protection as a social worker and district supervisor and family court coordinator. Ray is the author of 'The Art of Child Protection'. You can purchase it from him by writing to rtferris@telus.net

"Parental capacity assessments are essentially a method of making an inventory of the life skills of parents. PCAs are similar to Risk Assessments and the main difference is the starting point of each assessment. A risk assessment usually starts with a perceived risk and then assesses the strengths of a parent to resolve that risk. A parental capacity assessment is principally geared to assessing the historical and current functioning of a family in order to provide a profile. This past and present profile is then used to assess the likelihood of future risk. Some types of risk cannot be assessed properly without considering profile.

UNDER THE GUISE OF GOODNESS

Some days ago I composed a poem to convey the essence of the legalized act of removing an autistic child named Ayn from her parent and home for a reason that cannot be justified to the social conscience. She left her back yard and daddy didn't know where she was for three hours. For that she was taken from him five months ago and one can only imagine what she is experiencing. 

UNDER THE GUISE OF GOODNESS
by Ron Unruh ©

“It’s pernicious” is what I said.
There seems no better word for what they do,
these snatchers guised as guardians.
A pretext it has become, this protection of a child
when the youngster safe and happy is detached
by strangers.

“It’s insidious” I say to portray the taking of a child
without the knowledge of her parents
frenzied and fuming at the abuse of their child
and their own liberties.
What right can squash parental rights with impunity
when due diligence and fairness are derelict
and justice seems a stranger on a democratic soil.

“It’s sinister” I proclaim to parents of all children
because their own fears mount with the mention
of the protectors’ names.
This is not the only child to be taken
for her best interests don’t you see.
Free she was and alert although unpredictable.
She seems a stranger now, deeply drugged but controlled.

Pernicious, insidious, sinister do you now agree
are the appropriate descriptors for her abductors.
She is not at home because she wandered, oh but
she is a precious girl, precocious and autistic
and therefore apt to wander.
This is punishment not protection and perhaps she thinks
that she did something terrible. Why not, since the captors
have never inquired about the health of the family.
Strangers to justice they are – these takers.


Derek Hoare / 778-240-6373 / Facebook: justiceforayn.com
Derek's email: iconoclast_ensues@yahoo.com
Fundraising email: aynsfreedomfund@gmail.com
WEBSITE: www.Justice4Ayn.com
PLEA FOR AYN: http://on.fb.me/pUnuk0
THE PETITION: http://bit.ly/mrfdlE
VISIT OUR BLOG: http://bit.ly/qqO7ig
FUNDRAISING: http://on.fb.me/noNues
DOCUMENT LIST: http://on.fb.me/nQassx   

CANADA DAY, CHARTER OF RIGHTS & FREEDOMS, PROTECTION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS / 559

O Canada, Glorious and Free ………….. We stand on guard for thee.

Parents have brought children into the world. Inherent in our society is the conviction that the primary responsibility for care of the children belongs to the parents. That conviction translates into actual parental rights with regard to their children. Parental rights are viewed as "natural rights." It’s an essential tenet of cultural and societal Canadian life that parents will care for and control their children.

It is reasonably assumed within our society that parents are acting and will act in the child’s best interests. The protection of parental rights is founded on this fundamental postulation. The protection of such parental rights it follows will advance a child’s welfare.

CHRISTIE'S FINAL SUBMISSION installment 2of10 Medical Issues Priority / 490

The case is Paul and Zabeth Bayne in opposition to the application by the Director of Family and Child Services with respect to the ongoing care of the Baynes' three children. This is the second installment in a brief series of quotations from Doug Christie's final SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE to Finn Jensen's closing summation. It was presented November 4, 2010 to the Court (Judge Crabtree) on behalf of Paul and Zabeth Bayne. This is a public document having been submitted to the Court and Judge Crabtree did not place a ban on any of this material. He considered this submission in coming to his final conclusion presented on March 2, 2011.

Yesterday I quoted Mr. Christie's introduction. Today it is....Submissions and Analysis points 1-4

WE ARE NOT ALONE / Part 426 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

When on Wednesday the 19^th, Paul and Zabeth were informed that they would not hear the ruling for another month, they worked through their own disappointment with human emotion followed by reflective faith which has characterized their travel and travail.

To grasp how this works for them I am sharing the note that Paul and Zabeth sent to some people. Paul wrote, “Well this was supposed to be the DAY. The day when we would receive the news either one way or the other. God had other plans. God said no, it’s not today. Be patient. We won’t know the decision until the end of February now. Our children will be one month older, Josiah is due at the end of February. God what are You doing this time? Will this be another perfect timing thing again? I will hope in God even if I don’t understand. Thank you for your dedication and love toward our battle weary family. Thank God we are not alone.” 

This explains how they survive. Now you may not want to so readily attribute the delay to God but rather lay it at the doorstep of the judge or more generally the entire child welfare system with its liberal latitude of powers. The difference is fundamental. Their approach permits them to look forward with some optimism and confidence and I would say objectivity. Others might call it naivety. The other approach tends to result in persistent anger and a dark pessimism. At least that's the way I perceive it. And I don't know how one can possibly hope to work toward changing the inadequacies and failings within the child welfare system when one cannot speak without detonating.

So, what if at the end of February, not only does the MCFD win this court order for continuing care of their three children but also makes the move to apprehend a newly born baby boy against whom these parents have lavished only mother's milk and parental love? Will Paul and Zabeth come unglued then? Will their faith in God erode overnight? I can answer neither question with certainty.

Based upon their track record of stalwart management of continuous disappointment for over three years, I can venture a guess that they will not cave. And if the worst of all possible outcomes occurred, that these children remained in Ministry care and then inevitably in adoptive families, you would find Paul and Zabeth at the forefront for child protection changes in this country. They would champion parental rights. They would articulate the transparency and services and provisions and protections that the CFCSA was technically written to achieve but which lazy people compromised, alleging insufficient funds and programs.

And whereas some of you may take issue with me for being too easy on the Ministry and Judiciary because I have not personally had a child removed, Zabeth and Paul will understand totally, the agonies of parents and still demonstrate a control that permits them to engage with change-makers who will have to listen to them. My question is, are there any change-makers out there now who are prepared to give something other than lip service to an aggressive plan to make child protection work more graciously yet effectively?

What I think is that Paul and Zabeth are already change makers.

DEMOCRACY AND CHILD PROTECTION / Part 374 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

We can knock the involvement of the Ministry of Children in the lives of families and parents but we had better understand the philosophy that drives it.

We appreciate and applaud the democracy in which we live. We therefore need to understand it. As democracy pertains to the welfare of children, parents possess substantial rights as well as responsibilities with regard to the care of their children. Yet we have opted within our democratic society to provide a safeguard to children whose parents cannot or will not provide them adequate care. The government also owns responsibility to insure that children's needs are met.

Autonomy does characterize parental rights to decide for their children with regard to educational opportunities, religious heritage, discipline, cultural and recreational activities. Yet within this freedom lies an awareness that when concerns arise about physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect, then the government by way of a mandated child protection agency may become involved with the family. Sometimes this involvement is voluntary, which is to say that the agency upon request offers parents support and counsel to more effectively care for their children, and this may include monitoring and accountability. Other times the agency's involvement with a family is involuntary and even unwelcome. Of course a child protection agency must protect children from parents whose conduct constitutes physical abuse or neglect, sexual abuse, emotional abuse or neglect, or failure to provide adequate care. It is never justifiable to interfere with a family merely because the agency believes it can do a better job of care or provide more developmental opportunities. Justification of involvement occurs only when the level of care received by children has fallen below a standard which no child in the country should experience.

The social worker's struggle and the parent's conflict arises from the vagueness of definitions for child abuse and neglect because this requires assessment by a particular worker as to what that minimal standard for care should be and whether or not these parents have missed it.

This is certainly one of the dilemmas of our child protection system.

What is occurring presently with Paul and Zabeth Bayne and the repeated attempts by MCFD SWs to schedule a meeting to discuss the support and care of Paul and Zabeth Bayne's fourth and unborn child and Zabeth herself may be viewed technically as fulfilling the MCFD mandate. In light of the years of pain that MCFD involvement has delivered to the Baynes, these recent overtures might be interpreted as tantamount to harassment. Paul and Zabeth have always been trustworthy people. As young parents, they were responsibly caring for their three children before they were removed and under the gloomy forecast of the past three years have conducted themselves admirably well. While they wait now for news from Judge Crabtree as to whether they will be awarded custody of their three, they have characteristically prepared for their newborn. They are employed, have excellent medical support through family doctor and obstetrician, are registered at a hospital that is equipped with a special care nursery to handle deliveries 24 weeks and over, and they have the great benefit of incredible support from family and friends. Rather than playing by the book now, it would be advisable for MCFD to desist. It should be clear that confidence in MCFD motive and conduct is expended.

CANADIAN FAMILY ORGANIZATIONS / Part 339 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

If you are sympathetic to the grievous loss by parents of not only their children but of their inherent rights to parent their biological children, then you should browse the Parental Rights website that I noted yesterday. 
If you have compassion for children who have been removed from their parents when a conscientious effort could have been conducted to resolve the issues that interrupted the best interests of the child and the family, then spend some time digesting the information offered on this website.

I am not discounting sincere and passionate efforts being made provincially to gather a momentum of concern in order to gain a hearing with legislators. For instance, Protecting Canadian Children. 

Protecting Canadian Children is Ontario based and Ontario focused and will soon be hosting a CONFERENCE on Family Protection on Friday, November 5th, 2010 at the Renaissance Banquet Centre at 2289 Barton Street East, Hamilton, Ontario from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The cost is $40.00 (registration and lunch). If you live in Ontario you should attend. See Alfradine Linda Plourde's Facebook pages and PCC pages.

Another BC Society with a web presence is PAPA People Assisting Parents Association.  The mission of PAPA is simply stated as “We strive to protect the best interests of children by preserving their families and restoring healthy parenting ability. We safeguard the rights and dignity of parents in child protection activities.” The website is busy and bold, but when you take the time, you will find vast amounts of gathered data and stories. PAPA was formed by a group of citizens concerned about the "child protection" activities conducted by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. To that end its beliefs valiantly include these points. 1) Parents have the God-given right and responsibility to care for and bring up their children in a manner which is culturally and socially acceptable to their own values within the boundary of Canadian laws. 2) Family is the best environment to nourish children. Preservation of family is important to maintain a healthy social structure vital to child upbringing, national security and continuation of civilization. 3) Custodial right of one's natural offsprings is a fundamental human right and should be enshrined constitutionally. 4) Government must treat parents and children with respect and dignity in carrying out its child protection mandate. 5) State intervention in family affairs should be avoided except in extreme circumstances. Should interventions become necessary, they must be least intrusive and serve the best interests of both children and their parents.

In B.C. there is also a Chinese based organization with a broader social interest than just child welfare and it is called Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association, also with a website which allows the browser upon arrival to ask for English or Chinese language access. http://www.canadianalliance.org/ The website serves as a quarterly web-zine.

It's an intimidating acronym and one which I will never remember CASJFVA but it represents these objectives: 1) The advocating, fostering and safe-guarding of social rights and justice. 2) The advocating, fostering and protection of traditional family values. 3) The safe-guarding of parental rights with respect to education and up-bringing of their children. 4) The advocating, fostering and safe-guarding of constitutional, common law and civic rights and responsibilities of individuals both as citizens and as parents. 5) The advocating, fostering and establishment of traditional schools, social and educational institutions for the preservation of traditional values. 6) The advocating, fostering and safe-guarding of citizen’s right and entitlement to clean, just and upright government. CASJFVA has a decidedly Christian values foundation.

Perhaps you can inform us of other helpful organizations or websites.

Advocating for the return of Paul's and Zabeth's three children, in MCFD care since October 2007.

THE CHILD / Part 338 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

On Thursday evening a Commenter from the USA left a request for me to publicize a worthwhile cinematic production called “THE CHILD.” It is being completed as we speak with scrupulous editing and with integration of music and narration. The sponsor of this project is an American based organization called ParentalRights.org about which I have written favorably in the past.

The comment contact wrote, “Ron, could you please let your readers know more info regarding the ParentalRights.org upcoming film on parental rights.” So here for the American blog readers is this message: “You can help us premiere “The Child” all across the U.S. on November 20, 2010 by hosting a public screening in your area! If you can arrange a public venue for the screening and commit to attending it yourself, we will supply the advertising and educational materials, as well as an advance DVD copy of “The Child,” free of charge. To request all the details, email WatchmanCinema@gmail.com". My PS to Canadian readers today, it may be worth your while to write this address and ask whether you can have a copy. See the promo http://thechilddocumentary.wordpress.com/

A well designed and easily accessible, highly informative website greets you when you double click http://www.parentalrights.org/ . I truly wish that there was something comparable in Canada. I wish there was an identifiable national organization comprised of Canadians such as the thousands who now read this GPS blog who would care enough to administer, sponsor, promote and champion the cause of asserting the rights of parents in Canada, the true best interests of children, and a citizen friendly Ministry of Children.

Advocating for the return of Paul's and Zabeth's three children, in MCFD care since October 2007.