BC CHILD PROTECTION PROCESS

THE CHILD PROTECTION PROCESS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

When a report is sent to Child Protection services in B.C., concerning the safety of your child, there is a flow of decisions and actions that can be charted. To describe it to you, I begin with the Investigation. That is an investigation by the Ministry of Children, and specifically a social worker who begins a file for you and/or your child and is given responsibility to examine the report information.

The Investigation may ultimately lead the social worker to one of two decisions, Protection is Required or The Case is Closed.

If the conclusion is Protection is Required, then the question Removal Required? will have either a No or Yes answer.

If the social worker concludes No (removal not required), there are two (2) possibilities.

            Parent(s) Agree with the Director to Supervision

                        Or

            The Director Requests a Supervision Order 

        If the social worker concludes Yes, (removal is required) or if parents do not agree with Director to Supervision, then it proceeds to a Presentation Hearing, where the MCFD makes its case before the Court.

            One of Four (4) Court Rulings is made,

                                            i.    No Supervision Order is granted and Child remains with Parent(s)

                                          ii.    Interim Supervision Order granted, Child remains with Parent(s) with provisos

                                         iii.    Interim Supervision Order but Child is Placed with Someone Else

                                         iv.    Interim Custody Order and Child is Placed in Foster Care

 

            Each of the last three (3) rulings may lead to a Protection Hearing, and MCFD makes its case before the Court. 

            The immediate First Step is a Case Conference when MCFD meets with parents. If no agreement results, then it proceeds to the Protection Hearing.

            One of Four (4) Court Rulings is made,

                                            i.    Temporary Supervision Order is granted and Child remains with Parent(s)

                                          ii.    Temporary Supervision Order, Child with Someone Else

                                         iii.    Temporary Custody Order, Child in Foster Care

                                         iv.    Continuing Custody Order, Child in Foster Care

A copy of this in Chart Form is available at http://www.crownpub.bc.ca 

THE WAY IT WORKS

Natural parents have full rights over their child unless mitigated by an agreement or court order to the contrary. These rights, known as parental rights are also referred to as custody or guardianship.

Occasionally a parent is unable to cope with parental responsibility and voluntarily turns a child over to the government. By law, in all jurisdictions of Canada there are child protection services, sometimes called child welfare services.  The term 'apprehension' is applied to the government intervention by which a child is removed from the natural parent(s) care, and this is affected by the extraction of all or most of the parental rights from the natural parents, through a quick confirmation by the Court. On this blog we tend to highlight the cases in which the government has taken initiative for a child protection order by which parental rights are set aside temporarily. I cannot underscore boldly enough my objection to the too frequent occurrence of temporary care that ignores court orders and time parameters.

British Columbia's legislation is entitled Child, Family and Community Service Act. In Ontario, the related legislation is the Child and Family Services Act, and, in Alberta, the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act. The BC CFCSA is unique in that it personifies the role of the government in child protection cases by a reference to the Director who is a senior public servant in one of the five provincial regions who interestingly seldom becomes involved in individual cases and never appears in court. So in fact, 'Director' means the child protection office or social worker responsible for the file.

A VERBAL BULLET CLIP – AMMUNITION MEANT FOR MCFD

By Dr. Ron Unruh in Help Bring little Autistic girl back to her daddy

A VERBAL BULLET CLIP – AMMUNITION MEANT FOR MCFD

The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) has exhibited its already notorious failure to abide by its own policy and legal timelines in the case of Ayn Van Dyk. Ayn is ten years old and she is autistic. The policy which both empowers MCFD and gives direction to its operations is called Child, Family and Community Services Act. CFCSA specifies clear timelines for speedy processing. Speed has not characterized the way Ayn’s case has been handled following her removal. Ayn’s father Derek Hoare is presently in the centre of this agency’s ineptitude. Assembled below is a clip of verbal bullets.

Judge M.B. Hicks Decision regarding Josiah's Custody / 508

Picture: Michael Brown, Dreamstime.com

Bayne legal counsels have received official notification of the April 18, 2011 Decision of the Honourable Judge M.B. Hicks concerning the custody and care of Josiah Bayne, the fourth child born to Zabeth and Paul Bayne.

Cutting to the chase, Judge Hicks' decision, made in light of Judge Thomas Crabtree's decision that Josiah's three siblings require protection, is that Josiah needs protection. In a nine page document using 33 points, Judge Hicks wrote his reasons for his judgement and these are precisely what you would expect given the circumstances that spin from the earlier March 2, 2011 Crabtree ruling.