GOOD FOSTER PARENTS WANT THEIR FOSTER CHILDREN TO HAVE RIGHTS

"The bare facts of the case are quite enough to convince me that the director has shown very bad judgement in your case. It is the old story. The director is so scared that something unexpected might come up and bite him or her that there is an overreaction to every situation. "

MCFD IS BEING SUED

Ian Mulgrew

Pertaining to the Judge Walker case previously discussed, please be informed that a lawsuit is being presented and adjudicated against the Ministry of Children. Details can be found in this story by Ian Mulgrew.

Quoting Mr. Mulgrew

"The trial has been in Phase 2 since April 10, with the judge hearing the mother’s claims of public malfeasance, bad faith and abuse in care against the ministry to determine liability and damages.This has been going on for three weeks and there are at least another three to go. Legal fees and court costs total between $2 million and $3 million, Hittrich estimated.This is an ugly indictment of the ministry and calls out for an investigation by the Representative of Children and Youth. Aside from the liability issues, there is a serious question about how this happened and why it took so long to resolve."

RAY FERRIS' RESPONSE TO TURPEL-LAFOND's COLONIST ARTICLE

Photograph by: LYLE STAFFORD, Times Colonist

Today, the Times Colonist newspaper published Ray Ferris's most recent letter to the editor. He writes in reference to Sunday, February 24th's Colonist article entitled, "EVERY CHILD DESERVES A HOME," which was written by B.C.'s Representative of Children, Mary-Ellen Turpel-Lafond. Ray's letter was published with the subject heading, 'Provide foster parents with long-term guarantee'. Ray gave me permission to print it here in its entirety without alteration.

DOES THE GOVERNMENT REALLY WANT OUR INPUT?

DOES THE GOVERNMENT REALLY WANT OUR INPUT?

 by Ray Ferris

author of the book “The Art of Child Protection.”

You can purchase it from him by writing to rtferris@telus.net

“Some time ago submissions were invited to the provincial standing interparty committee on the representative for children and youth. It is this committee which selected Ms. Turpel-Lafond and with whom she dialogues and to whom she reports. I made a fairly long submission and copied the minister, and deputy minister. In it I used the Bayne case to illustrate some of the serious flaws in the protection services and to suggest some remedies. I emphasized that I was not advocating for the Bayne case, but simply using the Baynes to illustrate some of the problems. Even before submissions had been invited, I had sent a similar letter to the minister and the deputy minister. I eventually got a reply.

OKAY, SO LOGIC DOESN’T TELL US MCFD HAS TO GO

Yesterday, an anonymously delivered comment challenged my logic and the subsequent conclusions. My title was LOGIC TELLS US MCFD HAS TO GO. I used Aristotelian premises to make unconditional statements and uncompromising deductions. The writer convincingly disputed the soundness of my comparisons and compelled me to review my thought processes.

The writer observed, “I think it is a dangerous comparison saying that child protection is either effective of ineffective. Most things are not black and white like your comparisons (cat is either white or not white, or it is either raining or not raining). One could make the same comparison that open heart surgery is either 100% effective or not 100% effective and since it is not 100% effective it should no longer be a treatment option. If we take this line of thought we could essentially make a claim to discontinue all health care treatments. I think that if something is 80% effective it is something we continue to do. To state that 100% effective is the only way we keep a program is a very odd statement. We could use that rationale to rid the need for school. As School is not 100% effective for everyone.”

That was well written and effectively argued.

I realized that I had overstated what I still believe to be true. I recognized that my piece was a virtual discard of the baby with the bathwater. I customarily seek not to do that when I write. I may have written from a weary disposition and with foggy attention to my subject.

So, forget the logic analogy. It accomplishes little and confuses the issues. What I prefer to say is that performance reviews, ministry assessments, published opinions, reports by the Representative of Children and Youth, observation of the increase of court cases and the backup of cases in the judicial system, and the personal testimonies of hundreds of grieving parents convince me that the Child, Family and Community Services Act needs to be reworked in order to better insure that the necessary role of a Ministry for Children will protect children while safeguarding families and respecting parental rights. Then I believe there will be a higher probability that apparent injustice does not occur among innocents and that corrective and restorative efforts among families succeed.

CHILD PROTECTION WORK IS DEMANDING / 543

Expeditiously investigate concerns. Empathetically communicate with parents. Absolutely protect vulnerable children. Committedly try to stabilize a family. Compassionately assist parents.

No one says that the child protection worker’s job is an easy one. The CP worker is mandated not merely to protect children but to enhance their life quality as well as to strengthen families, including perhaps the families from which children have been removed.

How quickly a CP worker adjusts to the demanding rigor of the job is uncertain. It is documented however, that there has been much difficulty for many years in recruiting and retaining competent child protection workers.

HAS MCFD'S COMPLAINT RESOLUTION PROCESS WORKED FOR YOU? / 480

Hon. Mary McNeill & Hon. Steven Point

A new photograph of the Honourable Mary McNeill together with the Lieutenant Governor Steven Point on the occasion of her signing her oath of office is the only indication thus far that there has been a change of command at the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
 

Hon. Mary Polak

The Honourable Mary Polak is still pictured as the primary spokesperson of the Ministry to you when you see her and read her message of welcome to the MCFD website.

I'll cut Ms. McNeill and the Ministry a little slack since it has only been a bit more than a week since she took office and she has not been able to get to all of the tasks that will stack up in her inbox and task box. I wonder how soon she and her deputy minister will place their unique marks on the service plan and the CAPP. How much time must be granted to them as a learning curve?

Court Hearing Postponed / Part 440 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

In a follow-up comment on my same blog post of a couple of days ago, confidant, advisor and advocate to the Baynes, Ray Ferris provided an update to the scheduled court hearing regarding Josiah. Please don't misunderstand but catch Ray's sardonic turns of phrase.

Ray Ferris said... "OOPS! OOPS! OOPS! TRIPLE OOPS!

HERE IS THE VERY LATEST ON THE BAYNE CASE'

"When the MCFD rushed in to snatch the Bayne baby on Feb 10th, they locked themselves into having to go to court and file presentation papers within one week. The case was set down for hearing this morning in the Surrey court. Conspicuous by his absence was the worker who swore the affidavit. This means that he could not be questioned on it.When the Baynes got to court they found that the director had already arranged to have the matter adjourned to Feb 24. The judge refused to let the Baynes speak, so once more the system is stacked against them. The judge did say that she recommended the case should be heard by Judge Crabtree, so someone is listening to me. Now I will tell you what is really happening here. The answer is simple DAMAGE CONTROL.

You see it goes something like this. When director Bruce McNeill spent months and years trying to decide whether to follow his lawyer's advice to return the Bayne kids, he painted himself into a corner. If he backed out after all that time he would look bad. No matter because the Baynes had no more money for lawyers and would be defenceless. Then that darned Doug Christie ruined all the plans and people were saying unkind things on the Ron Unruh blog. People are so heartless you know. Then that wretched Bayne woman makes life even more complicated by getting pregnant again in the middle of the trial. Not only that it was a planned pregnancy! How could she do that to him? In defence of Mrs.Bayne, she feels that she has a lot of mother love to give and she always wanted another child. Nobody could believe that the trial would go past September and she would be delivered long after it was over.

Anyway, this left poor Bruce McNeill with a terrible dilemma.How could he possibly rant on for three years that the Baynes were totally unfit parents and then ignore this new child. He must show stern resolve and remove it at birth. If he did not, he would look weak and nobody would respect him. However, he is of course a man of profound compassion and he sought a way out for himself and the baby. If the parents would would work diligently and sincerely with his staff and allow them to help her with her pregnancy, then they might be able to agree on a parenting plan which would avoid apprehension and also demonstrate his benevolence. This might have worked fine if that dreadful man Ray Ferris had not interfered and Ron Unruh had not backed him up. He actually told Mrs. Bayne to have no contact with him (the Director) or his staff because it would put too much stress on her during her pregnancy. What a terrible thing to say and that wounded him deeply. What choice did that leave the poor fellow but to apprehend at birth?

So he summoned his trusty obedient servant Mr. Darth Humeny and said "Go to that hospital, grab the Bayne baby and do not come home without him." So Humeny jumped onto his black stallion, and galloped off to the Royal Columbian Hospital. He stormed into the nursery, spurs jingling and loudly announced that he was apprehending the Bayne child and that from now on he was Josiah's daddy."
February 17, 2011 4:14 PM

"He paused only to drop by Zabeth's room and tell her what he had done.He asked her to understand that he was only obeying orders. Oddly enough, Zabeth was not in the mood for a chat.

He next went back to the nursing station and asked how soon he could come in with a foster mother to pick up the baby. It was only then that he found out that Josiah would take at least a couple of weeks to gain the necessary weight. OOPS! DARN. If only he had thought to ask on the way in. He could have phoned the boss for instructions, but now he had announced that Josiah was in care and he could not back out. The best that he and the boss could come up with was to try to see how they could restrict access to the Baynes in the special care nursery. Obviously the best thing for Josiah was mother's milk and the medical staff favoured breast feeding. Because he was so small Baby Bayne had to drink expressed milk for a few days. Bingo!

They put a ban on expressed milk. These dangerous parents would probably poison the bottle.

They seemed to be back in control, but all hell broke loose. Facebook news travels fast. Soon the Rep for children and youth was being swamped with letters. Members of the legislature were getting an earful and so was the minister and the deputy minister. I was writing to everyone pointing out that there had been no less disruptive plan explored as requred by law. The child would be perfectly safe until Judge Crabtree ruled at the end of the month and the parents had unrestricted access to their baby and he was bonding with his mum.

Humeny that he could salvage the situation, by simply withdrawing his complaint and making up the sort of feeble excuse that they do so well.

So this morning's court was an exercise in damage control. Everybody was saying to the director that he should get out of this before he did any more damage. Of course Bruce could not risk losing face by withdrawing the complaint, so he dashed off to his trusty lawyer, pleading for rescue. The lawyer did what all lawyers do when they are in a jam. You ask for an adjournment. So they got an adjournment with no change in the status quo. No interim custody order of any sort. Legal limbo. Judge Crabtree has given himself until the end of February to announce his ruling. There are only two more working days left after the scheduled court date, so it is virtually certain that the ruling will be out by then and all will be resolved. If the ruling is against the ministry there will be a media storm and this last piece of stupidity will be buried in the waves.

If only McNeill had listened to me in mid December when I urged him to be cautious and not to move before Judge Crabtree's ruling. If only Leslie Dutoit had followed my request to her to urge prudence on her director. As the due date drew nearer, I urged them again to be prudent. This reckless action gained them nothing and only added more difficulties for the Bayne parents When the Baynes are so distressed, all their supporters are also distressed."

February 17, 2011 4:19 PM 

Re-think Accountability in child welfare /Part 412 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Among the changes that we might recommend to the Ministry of Children and Family Development, do you think it might be a good idea to ask for a re-think of the accountability required within the system. I am thinking particularly of an accountability formula that involves people other than those within the system itself. Sure we have a Representative of Children and Youth and her office has a specific mandate to be independent of MCFD and to serve as a watchdog. How well is that working? I'm not convinced it's entirely effective or let's say as effective as the Hughes recommendation envisioned it could be. The government has not embraced this objective independent voice and the MCFD has obstructed it. So, I am thinking of an external mechanism, a citizens' board to strengthen accountability in the child welfare system. The fear that might be expressed within MCFD might be that such oversight would discourage skilled workers from either entering or staying in the field. I view that as a dubious concern since the attrition of skilled workers is already a headache and that erosion is attributable to the failure of team leaders, supervisors and directors to be properly accountable for their calls, decisions and expectations. Of course we need to support skilled casework practice and the way that can be done most effectively is by creating less need or opportunity for criticism of the work by a healthy accountability mechanism. An accountability to us, the people, the citizens, the parents, teachers and children who own this community service with our tax dollars and our citizens' rights.

This Blog has been advocating the return of three children to their biological parents, Paul and Zabeth Bayne, for which a ruling is expected from Judge Crabtree within the next two weeks. Stay posted.

JOSEF FISHER / Part 408 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Josef Fisher has sometimes written comments on this blog site. At times I have taken exception to his angry writing. Recently, Josef requested that someone convert thousands of words from his sometimes incoherent English writing into a compelling introductory page for his blog.  I don't know why, but I took it on. He needed help. In gratitude Josef contributed a financial gift to the Bayne Trust Fund.  What you read now is a longer post than usual but it is a poignant fifteen year story of brokenness. MCFD is involved in breaking the man. 

Josef did not foresee that his dream of a free and happy life in Canada would turn out so tragically. Josef Fisher was born in Czechoslovakia in 1954 and in 1987 he fled communism to come to Canada. He is a naturalized Canadian living in Vancouver today. He is a broken man.

As an army officer in a small Czechoslovakian town Josef met a Cuban worker named Milene. Milene became pregnant and in 1985 returned to Cuba for their baby's birth. They named their son Yosef (later called Joe). Sadly Milene died eight days after Joe's birth. Milene's two sisters and mother took care of the boy until he was twelve.

Meanwhile Josef met a fellow Czechoslovakian named Iva in Italy where he was in a refugee camp for two years. He emigrated to Canada first and when she arrived ten months later, they were married. They briefly lived in Toronto where their daughter was born and they then moved to Vancouver in August 1991. In time, a son was born. After some interviews in 1995 Josef and Iva became foster parents receiving children from MCFD. They could not have known how MCFD involvement would change their lives. Some foster children from abusive backgrounds exhibited sexually aberrant behaviour which the Fishers reported and satisfactorily handled.

When his grandmother died in Cuba in 1997, Josef's son Joe requested to live in Canada with the Fishers. Fishers were still fostering children when they received Joe. After five months and on his first Christmas Eve in Canada, the Fishers learned that Joe had touched their six year old daughter indecently on several occasions. Joe was mortified by what he had done. While this sybling indiscretion could have been handled by the Fishers themselves, they trusted MCFD, so the Fishers notified their family doctor and MCFD. MCFD was initially satisfied with precautions taken by Fishers but then made accusations that they did not protect the children and MCFD installed 24 hour homemakers to monitor the family until a police investigation was done. A SW accused the Fishers of potential parental sexual exploitation which the social worker later acknowledged to be untrue. The frightened boy was interrogated by a Vancouver Police Sexual Offenses Squad detective who concluded the boy was remorseful and there was no risk of re-offending and no charge would be laid but also that counseling was needed for the boy's threats to harm himself.

Joe was twelve and terrified by social and psychiatric professionals. All members of the Fisher biological family were ordered into counselling. Josef and Iva felt victimized by a system that did not listen, assumed falsely, repeatedly made accusations and shut them out of consultations with their son. Their family future was being planned without them. Having fled communism, they were experiencing government interference and were helpless. They delivered requests for help to officials in early 1998. Their foster home was closed in 1998. Fishers were not permitted to say goodbye to the last foster child removed on Mother's Day in May 1998. Iva and Josef had to have mental health assessments. They refused. They cancelled the voluntary care agreement. They were threatened that Joe would be charged with sexual assault and their own children removed. Fishers were perceived as being unwilling for their children to receive therapeutic help.

They made appeals to anyone and everyone. Josef repeatedly complained to police and MCFD, the Attorney General, the Representative of Children, to MLA's, to MPs, the Civil Liberties Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging Human Rights violations. Initial sympathy always resulted in disappointment. Their children's teachers and their family doctor commended the Fishers and deplored MCFD's treatment. Sympathetic professionals sought to intervene but were squelched by MCFD. Young Joe needed a Spanish translation to understand. Mr. Fisher's own ability to express himself in English was always a challenge and his growing anxiety was expressed in ways that social workers felt offended and threatened. For the first time his mental health was questioned and the audio recording of the police interrogation is on his blog. As his helplessness increased, Mr. Fisher acted irrationally and he was arrested for uttering threats, then released. Josef's complaints were seen as inflammatory, harsh, libelous and slanderous. Judges would not listen to the Fishers' charges. Josef was viewed as a risk, obsessive and mentally unstable. Josef's communications were prolific and relentless until his letters and faxes and emails were viewed as criminal harassment. By 2000 all agencies closed their ears to Josef. He was arrested once again, charged, found guilty and placed on probation. Over the next eight years he was arrested nine times, was incarcerated for many months, was detained for psychiatric assessment and was diagnosed as narcissistic, obsessive, compulsive, paranoid with antisocial traits. The issues were always related to Criminal harassment, Breach of probation and Uttering threats. On March 14 2005 Josef hit the news as an Emergency Response Team was summoned to prevent him from lighting himself on fire at the CBC Plaza in downtown Vancouver. By 2007 his son Joe had already experienced tasering, arrest, become drug dependent and homelessness. He was eventually placed in a group home.

Josef has not stopped telling his story and he will never get over his destroyed life. I don't condone all that Josef did. Had I known him I would have advised him on different courses of action many times. So, while Josef is responsible for his own responses, all government systems failed him and his family. His daughter has gone on to be successful at university. Josef and his son Joe (now 26) may find an apartment together. Josef and his wife Iva will be divorced in January 2011. I truly hope that all their lives are happier in 2011.

I have Josef's permission to tell this story. You can read Josef's own journalled account of his long ordeal in his linked blog. As you read all of his pages, bear in mind that the writing reflects Josef's agony, anger, confusion as well as English being his second language.

To Whom Can you Complain? / Part 402 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

I would like to know whether any of you who are reading today, have had occasion formally to make a complaint about the ministry. We are told that this is possible. When you have concerns about the care of your child in the foster care program or a concern about a social worker, you are entitled to make this complaint known. Have you ever done this? When it is a complaint about a social worker or when you cannot make contact with the SW, you are encouraged to speak with that SW's supervisor. Of course, to do that, you may have to ask the social worker for the name and phone number of their supervisor. Has that worked? And of course you can write a letter of your concern directly to the social worker with a copy to the supervisor and request reconsideration of a decision or action. Have you done this? Beyond that, the Ministry of Children does have a complaint resolution process for which you may call at no charge to 1-877-387-7027 asking for the dispute resolution consultant in your area. Have you tried that and if so, how did it go? When that is unhelpful, you can call the Board of Registration for Social Workers of BC. Their phone number is (604) 737-4916 (in Vancouver). If the social worker is registered with that board, you can file a complaint with them. Some people turn to their MLA, elected representative (Member of the Legislative Assembly). Have you done this? You might contact your Ombudsman if you are getting help nowhere else, by calling (250) 387-5855 (in Victoria) or 1-800-567-3247 (elsewhere in BC; call no charge). You may ask for this help. Have you called that number? When your complaint is about the care being received in a foster situation by your child, call the Representative for Children and Youth of BC. The phone number is (250) 356-0831 (in Victoria) or 1-800-476-3933 (elsewhere in BC; call no charge). E-mail them at cyo@gov.bc.ca.

The Baynes have done all of this unsuccessfully over the course of three years.

(If you missed it on Tuesday when he wrote it, catch Ray Ferris's comment on this same theme.)  If it's as bleak as Ray described it, we are in a deep hole.

OPTIMUM POSITION/ Part 399 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

If you stand too close to a painting, you see only the broad brush strokes of colour.

If you stand too far back you are unable to see the details.

But at that optimum position you can see enough detail that the composition evokes a Wow!

'Mary's Eyes' closeup

The Director and his team all the way to the social workers who are in regular contact with Paul and Zabeth Bayne are too close to the painting of the Bayne family ordeal and they see only the heavy impaso of the Baynes refusal to acknowledge responsibility for their youngest child's injuries three years ago. They see only the thick application of public exposure. They see their own Ministry overtures as fair and generous and considerate and they view the Baynes as uncooperative. They are so close that they cannot see the nuances of the changing brush strokes over the past three years. They see the Baynes determination, and unwillingness to acquiesce to Ministry pressures.

Mary Polak, Leslie du Toit and all of the associates in Victoria are standing too far away to see the details. They cannot see that the portrait is really not one canvas but a diptych, two canvasses side by side, one showing the distress of a family separated and the other showing the joy at being together. The Victoria viewers have no appreciation for the pathos and expression of this family portrait. They cannot see the pain on the faces or the tears on the cheeks. Nor can they see pleasure on the faces of parents holding their children and happiness on the countenances of the children as they play with one another among the familiar items of home. Nor does Victoria care. And the crew in Victoria stand too far away to see the mistakes that have been making in creating the A side of the diptych while preventing the B side from being realized.

'Mary's Eyes' by Ron Unruh 2010

The premise for the creation of the position of Representative of Children and Youth was that an official should be charged with responsibility to stand at the optimum position in order to view family portraits like that of the Baynes. While the Bayne portrait may not be a classic it nonetheless grabs a viewers attention from across the room and with each step closer it delivers and holds the viewer's attention. We were hoping that the Representative's Office would stand at the optimum position and notice that Side A was not completed and would then conclude that Side A should never have been begun. But that is not the Representative's mandate. We were hoping that the Representative would engage with the idyllic Side B composition and offer an opinion but that is apparently not mandated either. As much as I hate to admit this, this leaves only us, the discerning public to stand at the optimum place to see both the entire composition as well as the strokes that have achieved these results. If we feel strongly about this portrait we will have to invite countless other people to examine it as well, critics, journalists, news networks, politicians, legislators.

POLITICIANS AND CHILDREN/ Part 390 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

I am usually hopeful. Today, not so much.

The contentious spirit, the vast expenditure of monies evidenced in our British Columbia political climate as individuals vie for control of political parties and ultimately for the governing mandate of the province is a waste of resources of all kinds. This is however a diminutive display in a small arena which typifies what humanity is doing on a much larger scale around the world. Wikileaks are merely a temporary embarrassment for nations treating one another with suspicion and disrespect in the midst of a veneer of good relations. Elsewhere North Korea simply ignores the politics and aggressively blows up South Korean property. And all of this, for what?

Back to British Columbia. Progress is inhibited because there is so much wheel-spinning as individuals and parties protect themselves. Working together is a concept that eludes our kind. We can theorize but the personalities who are driven to acquire power are hot-wired to fight for factional interests. That's because they get to the power station by accommodations to special interests which thereafter must be placated. The greater interest and greater good of the whole, the province, the people, the seniors, the children, the disabled, the students, the teachers, the medical professionals, the tradespeople, are given perfunctory attention. The resources of this province should be viewed as belonging to all of us. Somehow the government has philosophically divorced itself from us but refused to accept this. From an historical anecdote, our government is the kind that gives the province's teachers grief and delay at the bargaining table and then follows it up by an outlandish in our faces raise for MLAs.

Our government is the consumer society. It devours money. It passes legislation and creates programs for the self-serving purpose of generating more usable dollars to consume on projects that do not matter and do not help the whole. Yet when the budget and the funds are challenging, the really important ministries and services that help us are slashed or eliminated. Isn't that right? Haven't you read about this before?

Yes, well, sorry about all that, but it is illustrative of my frustration with the upper echelon of the Ministry of Children which should and could work together with the Representative of Children and Youth, rather than moving instinctively into a defensive posture. An objective appraisal of MCFD by the Rep should be seen as helpful and on the other hand the Representative could be making constructive suggestions over the months rather than presenting a landmine report once every couple of years. We really know how to do things incorrectly. And the Governing Liberal Cabinet refuses to put money where it would do the most good. So, I need another dark roast coffee right now to fortify me to think about our provincial leaders who cannot be trusted with the best interests of children when they spend most of their time marketing themselves, roasting their opponents or planting IEDs for one another. It would be so refreshing to hear a politician speak about ministry to children, parents and families from a position of sincere commitment.

TURPEL-LAFOND SETS A STANDARD FOR MCFD? Part 385 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

It is the job of the Representative of Children and Youth to provide a report on the Ministry of Children and Family Development that is an independent, and objective assessment as well as a document of advice. It is a progress report. It is a report card by which to inform the Legislature as well as the MCFD itself, and it is a public report so that all of us may know whether this vital Ministry is fulfilling its mandate.

Because the establishment of the Representative's position and the hiring of Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond was simultaneous with the Hughes Review and Recommendations of 2006, this report is appraising the progress of MCFD in accomplishing the specific 62 recommendations resultant from the Hughes Review. I told you yesterday that she will not use the recommendations for any future measurement of MCFD because MCFD has abandoned them.

The Representative of Children and Youth considers that the MCFD has willfully disconnected from the Hughes recommendations, and in her report she is concerned that MCFD is presently positioned to make lofty promises but is showing no evidence of improved outcomes. She writes that “There is insufficient evidence of appropriate budgeting, workforce management or clarity around expectations for non-governmental service providers. All of this is compounded by recent budget pressures and new priorities on fiscal restraint.”

I have lifted the next two paragraphs directly from her report, pgs. 6-8.
That entire report can be read at this link.

“The Representative is not expecting MCFD to achieve a standard beyond reach."

There is no such thing as a perfect child welfare system. But an effective system has some essential characteristics, and these were articulated clearly in the Hughes Review. A well-functioning child welfare system meets the obligations established in legislation by:
• establishing a clear mandate
• guaranteeing children and families equitable and consistent access to core services
• establishing service expectations and standards to ensure consistency
• establishing effective structures and systems to support the services, including adequate
supervision and ongoing training
• allocating appropriate resources, including adequate and qualified staff
• achieving reasonable outcomes
• reporting on outcomes achieved at the level of the child, particularly for children at risk
• maintaining transparency in the delivery of services, and
• monitoring performance and using data to improve services.”

“These are the fundamental elements of the system that the Representative will continue to monitor in the interests of transparency and public accountability. The Representative is not confident that these components are currently in place given the level of reporting and accountability the ministry has provided.”

MCFD JUST GOT SLAMMED/ Part 383 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Here is today's Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's 60 page report.

 GRAND SLAM, SLAM DUNK, call it what you will, the head honchos of the Ministry of Children and Family Development had it done to them. The Directors, team leaders and social workers in the various regions have earned this failing grade but the top bureaucrats own the responsibility for it. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond delivered it on Monday in Victoria. She is the Representative for Children and Youth. While she has given scathing reports in the past today was the most recent and perhaps the most stinging assessment of the province's child welfare system.

I have written blog posts for the next couple of days but these must be shelved for the moment to focus on Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's report. I cannot even wait until tomorrow. You need to engage with this now. If you didn't hear her speak during news hours today, then you will want to read this. If you are one of those who feel she is just a headline grabber, then I disagree with you. I see her as our best ally. She is seeing what we have been seeing and expressing. She has the weight of office to say it in a manner that will be heard. If she gets increasing news coverage we had better be thankful because it means that the public is going to be informed and concerned and demanding of answers. She was hired to be a watchdog and she has been growling in the past and today we heard that she has a big bark as well.

Listen to her as CBC recounts her report. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/11/29/bc-childrens-watchdog-report.html?ref=rss

She says that the Liberal “government has only fully implemented less than half the recommendations in the 2006 landmark report on the child welfare system by retired judge Ted Hughes.” She is “deeply disappointed with the government's progress and is particularly critical of what she sees as a lack of accountability and oversight in the child welfare system.” She said that “the changes made in public reporting have met neither the letter nor intent of the Hughes report and the information posted publicly now is less useful than in the past.” She described the government's action “as vague promises that make high-level references to the Hughes review yet offer no detailed information, and at other times outright government dismissal." She feels that the “Ministry of Children and Family Development has failed to meet the targets in its service plans, and that means troubles ahead. Difficult economics times can mean harsher realities for many of B.C.'s families.... Poverty will deepen for some, unemployment rates will climb, and previously successful families may struggle. Social services may be required more often, and community supports may disappear. Stagnant or decreasing budgets will not be able to address the need of additional children and families," she said.”

American Family Rights is the Voice of America's Families and its slogan is 'Until Every Child Comes Home.' It published this CBC story in a hurry today. Believe me, this is news around the world where similar issues exist. http://afrafrontpagenews.blogspot.com/2010/11/bc-childrens-watchdog-slams-government.html

TURPEL-LAFOND: ESTEEMED BURR UNDER THE SADDLE / Part 298 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

She is a bit of a burr under the saddle of the MCFD. It doesn't need to be that way. MCFD could regard her as an advantage. Her work has potential to make MCFD better.

In November 2006, Dr. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond was appointed British Columbia's first Representative for Children and Youth. It is a five-year term and her responsibilities include; advocating for children and youth, protecting their rights and improving the system for their protection and support, particularly those who are most vulnerable. She serves all British Columbians under the age of 19, with an emphasis on young people in government care – such as those in foster homes, group homes or youth custody. These children and youth face greater challenges than those in the general population, especially related to health and education, incarceration and dependence on income assistance.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, S.J.D. (born 1963 in Norway House, Manitoba) the youngest of four girls born to a Cree father and Scottish mother on a reserve in northern Manitoba. She is a member of the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation. She grew up in poverty, endured harsh physical mistreatment, and was surrounded by domestic violence and alcoholism in her home—a mirror of the upbringing experienced by many of the children she now encounters.

She is a Canadian lawyer and advocate for children's rights, and a judge on leave of the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan. At age 35 Turpel-Lafond was the first Treaty Indian to be named to the bench in Saskatchewan. She was the Administrative Judge for Saskatoon, involved in the administration of the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan in relation to access to justice, judicial independence projects, technology and public outreach. She has also worked as a criminal law judge in youth and adult courts, which led her to work at developing partnerships to better serve the needs of young people in the justice system, particularly sexually exploited children and youth, and children and youth with disabilities, such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

As a practicing lawyer, she appeared before all levels of Courts in Canada, including the Supreme Court of Canada. Turpel-Lafond has worked on land claims with the Indian Law Resource Center in Washington, D.C., and served as a key legal and constitutional adviser to aboriginal leaders. She has been touted for a seat on the Supreme Court of Canada.

By age 16, she was already at Carleton University, Ottawa, gravitating from math and science to politics, philosophy and eventually the law. Turpel-Lafond holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Carleton University, a law degree from Osgoode Hall, a master’s degree in international law from the University of Cambridge and a doctorate of law from Harvard Law School. She also holds a certificate in the international and comparative law of human rights from the University of Strasbourg in Strasbourg, Alsace, France.
Time magazine has twice bestowed honours upon Turpel-Lafond, naming her one of the '100 Global Leaders of Tomorrow' in 1994, and in 1999 as one of the 'Top 20 Canadian Leaders for the 21st Century'.
Prior to her judicial appointment, Turpel-Lafond was a lawyer in Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan and a tenured professor of law at Dalhousie University Faculty of Law. She taught law at the University of Toronto, the University of Notre Dame and other universities, and held the position of Aboriginal Scholar at the University of Saskatchewan. She has been a visiting professor at the University of British Columbia and the University of Victoria law schools.

As the Representative, she doesn’t work for the government. Rather, the Representative for Children and Youth is an independent office of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and does not report through a provincial ministry. Their work is based on the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child, and upholds the following values:
– Children have a right to be protected and kept safe
– Families are the best environment for raising a child
– Parents and extended family have the primary responsibility for a child
– Decisions made about a child should include their own views and input

Bio Information from her website
and from Wikipedia

TURPEL LAFOND IS OUR MCFD WATCHDOG / Part 189 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

In the words of Ralph W. Sockman, “The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.”

Minority player Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is demonstrating a level of courage that should evoke in the public a rush of confidence and support because she is taking the Ministry of Children and Family Development to court for a justifiable reason. That government ministry with the majority hand, recently acted in a manner that may be an embarrassment. MCFD system operations are well secreted from public eyes and Turpel-Lafond is our watchdog.

After years of performance questions and criticism, the MCFD was reviewed by a select group chaired by Hon. Ted Hughes a few years ago. Among his many recommendations in the Children and Youth Review was the creation of the Office of an objective representative for children and youth. Mr. Hughes was convinced that an independent officer of the legislature could provide valuable perspective on child services and help to improve British Columbia’s child-serving system. The Review was quite critical of the management of the Ministry of Children and Family Development yet Mr. Hughes was powerfully supportive of the work of front-line child welfare workers employed by MCFD.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is British Columbia’s first Representative for Children and Youth. The mandate of her office is articulated in its own act, the Representative for Children and Youth Act. The Act presents a range of powers, duties and functions. There are four sections. • provide advocacy services for vulnerable children and youth and their families respecting designated services. • investigate critical injuries and deaths of children receiving child welfare services. • monitor and evaluate services to children, youth and their families to ensure their effectiveness and responsiveness, and thereby raising the degree to which the child-serving system is accountable publicly. • Finally, conduct evidence-based research that enables us to make recommendations aimed at enhancing the future development and delivery of services for vulnerable children and youth in BC.

Her office is in our (the Public's) best interests. She is B.C.’s independent child welfare watchdog. Candidly her role should be regarded as being in the government's best interests if it wants to enhance so many levels of its service to our communities. Yet Ms. Turpel-Lafond is compelled to fight for her independence right now. When B.C.’s independent child welfare rep. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond sought cabinet documents to complete an audit, the BC Liberal government introduced legislation denying her access. She filed a court petition last Tuesday saying she had hit the wall in her efforts to get government information she needs to gauge how well protected children are in B.C.

Children’s Minister Mary Polak called the petition a “waste of scarce resources” and said Turpel-Lafond’s access would be blocked unless she signs a “protocol agreement” on confidentiality — an agreement Turpel-Lafond refuses to sign. Come on Ms. Polak, don't get sucked into this protectionist posture. Who is advising you?

You should read the stories all over the press and online ….
- In the Coquitlam Now News , May 12th article “Information critical to protecting kids”
- “Minister defends decision on access to documents” Access granted to B.C.'s representative for children is 'unprecedented': Polak By Jennifer Moreau, Burnaby Now May 12, 2010
- Children's rep is fighting for independence”, By Paul Willcocks, Times Colonist May 12, 2010
- B.C.'s child-welfare watchdog gets early court date for petition against B.C. Government", By Rob Shaw, timescolonist.com May 6, 2010 and Vancouver Sun
- WHAT IS MCFD TRYING TO HIDE?, May 03, 2010, Tracey Young, MSW RSW