MORE BAD NEWS ABOUT THE MINISTRY OF CHILDREN

             The B.C. Ministry of Children is in the news almost every day. The items are invariably unpleasant. Two more headline stories this week, indications of a systemic limitation - control and accountability. It's not Stephanie Cadieux's fault. The Honourable Minister is an honourable woman. She cannot be responsible for what social workers and their supervisors decide and effect. Ministers change yet the negative press repeats year after year. Protection of children and care for vulnerable children is undeniably difficult and problematic. Before she is moved on, she and her office must genuinely dialogue with Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Representative for Children and Youth and official watchdog over the Ministry of Children, and address jointly constructed plans, policies and action steps to transform this Ministry. The window of opportunity may be small since Turpel-Lafond's 10-year term is finishing.

            So here are the two newsmaker articles this week.

SOCIAL WORKERS NEED CHILD-PROTECTION TRAINING

This is an opinion piece by my colleague and guest writer, Ray Ferris appeared in The Times Colonist. Ray sent it to me after it was published there. whom you know as the author of 'The Art of Child Protection,' and as a frequent contributor here, as well as an advisor to countless parents as well as lawyer and members of parliament. You can order the book at rtferris@telus.net

The Walker judgement and several others have made it evident that an adversarial and even hostile culture permeates the ministry responsible for child protection. There are probable causes for this. One is that provincial social workers used to be responsible for both financial assistance and child welfare. The deep-seated antagonism to assistance applicants rubbed off on child welfare cases, often the same cases. The three children’s aid societies were kinder, because they handled no assistance. All services were amalgamated by the first NDP government.

The courts used to function well. In the late seventies I studied about 200 cases which went through the Victoria court. No cases exceeded statutory time guidelines and judges were vigilant in demanding proper notices and other parental protections. Only four cases went to contested hearings. Most cases were settled by negotiation. There were many registered social workers and there was a sense of professionalism among the staff members.

B.C. GOVERNMENT NEEDS A CONSCIENCE.

The B.C. government is appealing Judge Walker's recent 2015 ruling that vindicated a good mother and publicly pilloried the Ministry of Children for a botched child protection case. This unfortunate mother and her children must feel like they are living a frightening fiction. Dorothy met three principle characters in the Wizard of Oz, each missing something essential. The Scarecrow required and wished for brains. The Tin Woodman desired a heart. The cowardly Lion needed courage. The B.C. Liberal Government and its Ministry of Children and Family has misplaced all three, brains, heart and courage. In this instance, the Government also reveals an absent conscience.

Put this family's experience into a justice framework. Then stand back and view what the B.C. Ministry of Children has done to Mom's family and what the B.C. Government will now compound.

In 2009 Mom and Dad were divorcing. Mom had concerns that Dad was sexually abusing their children. She reported this both to the Ministry and to Police. MCFD did not investigate this. Dad, educated and smooth talker, manipulated Ministry social workers to believe that Mom as mentally unstable. Ministry informed police of the same so police did not suitably investigate. Ministry wrongly apprehended Mom's children. Ministry provided false or misleading information to the judge to support the apprehension. Ministry sided with Dad in a custody battle. Ministry disregarded a court order and allowed Dad unsupervised access to his children. He then sexually abused his youngest child. The judge awarded the children to Mom. She sued the government. The Judge found the Ministry liable for negligence, misfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty.

Hon. Stephanie Cadieux, Photo: Doug Craig

These details are all contained within this justice framework. What would have turned this into a masterpiece, would have been heartfelt contrition by the government and by the Minister and Ministry personnel. But that is the stuff of fairy tales. So, the Premier and the Minister of Children promised a Review. Really? Bob Plecas, who is commissioned to conduct the review has no authority to place anyone under oath and he cannot lay blame. The review becomes meaningless now that the Government and the Ministry have decided to appeal Judge Walker's ruling. While this is before the court, no one is obliged to even talk to Plecas. More importantly, the hell that the government put Mom and the kids through for six years will drag on for several more years instead of settling with her. Oh, Stephanie Cadieux says this is not about the family. It's about getting clarity. How much clearer can it be? This is about not taking ownership of mistakes, and about dedicating oneself to fixing what is systemically faulty, and about sweeping this tasteless mess under the proverbial rug. These are elected officers of the Government showing up for work without a mind, heart, courage and most critically without a conscience.

PAUL WALKER JUDGEMENT & Hon. Stephanie Cadieux’s Promise

* by Ray Ferris, Guest Author

Two things immediately strike me as being of interest following the scathing Paul Walker judgement. First it looks as if they intend to hang the social workers out to dry and blame it all on them. Do they imagine we don’t know that the social workers act under strict direction and many people higher up the ladder were involved in this case. One cannot spend the millions that the protection trial cost and the many more that the misfeasance trial cost without authorization from a very high level. Nor did the social workers have the authority to abruptly fold the case on day 66.

JUSTICE WALKER'S RULING WORD FOR WORD

Honourable Mr. Justice Walker rendered a scathing decision against the Director of the Ministry of Children and Family and the agents of the Ministry. After approximately 130 pages of factual summary, Justice Paul Walker wrote the following judgement dated, July 14, 2015.

It is by far the most wounding judgement ever directed against the often negligent and criticized Ministry. The ruling will cost the Ministry a fortune that taxpayers are funding because this was a lawsuit brought by a mother who was wronged and whose children were sexually molested by their father and the Ministry failed to investigate thoroughly and sided with the father against the mother. The Ministry got it all wrong all of the time. And sadly, this is the allegation that so many parents have been making over many years. Now Stephanie Cadieux, Minister of Children and Family promises a review, but she must understand that she must conduct this rather than to leave it to MCFD to do a self-assessment. Read Justice Walker's entire ruling. You will shudder. Here is his conclusion.

XXII.   CONCLUSION

[1071]  The Province is liable for misfeasance, breach of the standard of care, and breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the Director and her agents.

[1072]  The misfeasance of Mr. Strickland set in motion a series of events, including the Apprehension, which caused various social workers and Ministry employees involved in the file to view J.P. as manipulative and malicious. . The Director failed to assess and investigate reports of sexual abuse as required by the CFCSA and the standard of care. The Director had no reasonable basis to apprehend the children. The Apprehension was wrongful.

[1073]  The Director unreasonably and with a closed mind rejected at the outset the veracity of the sexual abuse allegations and took the view they were fabricated by J.P. before the VPD completed its investigation and before the children were interviewed. The Director did not consider whether the children were at risk of harm as a result of the children’s sexual abuse disclosures and other evidence. The Director concluded that the children needed protection from J.P. and not B.G. without conducting any assessment and investigation of her own.

[1074]  As J.P. continued to complain about the sexual abuse of her children and to protest the Director’s conduct, social workers’ antipathy towards her increased, and as it did, the Director’s focus turned away from the best interests of the children to J.P. As early as February 2010, the Director encouraged B.G. to apply for custody in order to return the children to him, regardless of information adverse to B.G. and even though she acknowledged the possibility that B.G. had sexually abused his children. In that latter respect, the Director acted in breach of her fiduciary duty to the children while they were in her care.

[1075]  The children remained in foster care while the Director provided her ongoing support of B.G., until March 29, 2012 (when the Director withdrew her protection concerns about J.P.). The children could not be immediately returned to their mother’s care because of the need for appropriate reintegration having been kept in foster care for so long.

[1076]  The Director rebuffed J.P.’s efforts to ameliorate the Director’s protection concerns and always, and unreasonably, assumed the worst of J.P.’s motives and conduct. In addition to Mr. Strickland’s misfeasance, for which the Director is responsible, social workers, for whom the Director is also responsible, engaged in a wholesale disregard of their statutory mandate and the requisite standard of care expected of them to protect the children from harm.

[1077]  Social workers who became involved in the case for the Director sought to further the plan to support B.G. in a manner that overlooked the children’s best interests. The Director’s antipathy towards J.P. diverted her attention from the children’s needs for medical intervention in spite of Mr. Colby’s opinion evidence and reports of the children’s highly disturbing sexualized and aggressive behaviours provided by supervised access workers. That antipathy, coupled with the plan to support B.G., led social workers to rebuff J.P. personally as well as the information she tried to provide in support of her case and to provide services for the children. Based on the evidence available to the Director by mid to late December 2009, it should have been apparent to the Director that the risk of harm to the children from B.G. was very high.

[1078]  The Director was put on notice that B.G. had sexually abused the children and would do it again, and she cannot say now that she did not know it was possible or could occur while he was given unsupervised access to his children.

[1079]  The Director’s decision to provide B.G. with unsupervised access led to P.G. being sexually abused by her father. Her decision also placed the children in close, regular, and unsupervised proximity with the person who had abused them

[1080]  In the course of pursuing custody of the children in favour of B.G., the Director decided that she did not have to abide by orders and directions of this Court about B.G.’s supervised access to the children. No credence can be given to the Director’s current advice to this Court, communicated through counsel, that she will abide by orders of this Court. Her advice is inconsistent with the position she recently took before another judge of this Court.

[1081]  The Director provided false and misleading information (in the Form “A”) to the Provincial Court to support the Apprehension and failed to correct or amend even though its social workers (depending on whom and at what point in time), knew or ought to have known it contained false and misleading information. She also relied on the Form “A” and other incorrect affidavit evidence when supporting B.G.’s custody application in this Court, when pursuing her application for an extension of the temporary custody order in the First Trial, and seeking the restraining order against J.P. in the Provincial Court. The Director improperly interfered with Mr. Colby’s investigation because she did not agree with an order made by this Court.

[1082]  The Director delayed in delivering documents requested by another branch of government in order to process the plaintiffs’ claims for compensation. Her conduct was either deliberate or the result of gross neglect but in either case the conduct was callously indifferent to the children’s needs.

[1083]  In all, I found that the Ministry employees who gave evidence, who were involved with the plaintiffs, lost sight of their duties, professionalism, and their objectivity.

[1084]  Even today, many of the social workers involved in the case doggedly stick to their adverse view of J.P., despite the Director’s decision to withdraw her protection concerns, the lack of any expert opinion evidence that J.P. suffers from a mental illness and the findings from the First Trial that the children were sexually and physically abused by their father. Many Ministry employees are unable to comprehend, let alone accept, any reason for the Director to have reversed her position, as she did, during the First Trial.

[1085]  Some Ministry witnesses were openly hostile towards J.P. when giving their testimony. Many of them refuse to accept the findings of fact made during the First Trial despite the claim made by some of them that what they wanted all along was to have an independent third party examine all of the evidence and determine if sexual abuse had occurred.

[1086]  Immunity afforded by the CFCSA to good faith discretionary decisions is not afforded to the Director and social workers in this case.

[1087]  The Director is also required to pay for special costs of the First Trial in an amount that will be determined from further submissions.

[1088]  In conclusion, I wish to add that J.P. assumed and carried out the Director’s statutory mandate to protect her children. If it were not for the Herculean efforts of J.P., the children would now, through the fault of the Director, be in the custody of their father who sexually and physically abused them.

SARA JANE WIENS’ LAWSUIT

Isabella would be almost four years old now.  She is dead. In 2011 her mother Sara Jane Wiens was an Ontario resident who had fled to B.C. to escape an abusive ex-boyfriend. Her lawyer Jack Hittrich, says that the B.C. Ministry falsely alleged that Wiens was fleeing a child protection order in Ontario. He customarily has substantial reason for the things he says.

In Hittrich’s words, “She is told that she cannot parent because she poses a risk to this young child…The child is scooped from her. There’s no attempt made to work with her to reunite her with her child. They then completely abdicate their responsibility to monitor the foster home and attend to these injuries.”

Sara Jane Wiens was 21 years old when her baby, two-month-old Isabella was removed from her by MCFD in August 2011 and placed in foster care. At the time, Wiens was deemed unfit to care for Isabella. 21 months later in March 2013, her baby died in her crib while in that care home, a service that the government deemed was in the child's best interests.

MOM SUING MINISTRY OF CHILDREN IN B.C.

Sara Jane Wiens and baby Isabella

It looks like the Ministry of Children and Family Development is once again going to be defending a losing case in a B.C. court. Sara Jane Wiens is suing the Ministry and the Minister, Stephanie Cadieux. MCFD should acquiesce right now because Christopher Heslinga and Jack Hittrich are the lawyers for Ms. Wiens. Mr. Hittrich is exceptionally effective at exposing MCFD incompetence. Nevertheless the MCFD will send its legal team into the fray at the expense of taxpayers. That's the pattern. No admissions. Merely costly defenses. The Ministry wins most cases. Perhaps not any longer.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development was only doing it's job. That's the fallback cover line when any case goes south. It's not good enough when the credo of MCFD is persistently, 'the best interests of the child.'

THE COUNTDOWN HAS BEGUN

 Nine days until the TCO comes to its conclusion, that is, the end of the temporary care order applying to Ayn Van Dyk, daughter of Amie Van Dyk and Derek Hoare. Expectation is high that twelve-year-old Ayn will be returned to one of the parents, likely Amie. If that outcome is realized, one extended family will be ecstatic with a range of emotions, and a phalanx of supporters on several continents will be thrilled.

In that case I wonder what Hon. Stephanie Cadieux will think about the Ministry of Children and Family Development of which she is the Minister in charge. An individual case is customarily not a priority for a Minister but Ayn’s case will have come to her attention. It’s a unique case. It’s a distasteful case.

It’s true that Ayn’s case did not transpire during Hon. Cadieux’s watch and she came into office late in this girl’s saga but if she has apprised herself at all about the details, she will know how this story is perceived by responsible readers of facts. Ayn was taken for an apparent reason, that Derek, the sole caregiver at the time, could not manage the parental responsibility of this disruptive and unpredictable autistic child. I described it as an apparent reason, because conscientious fact-finding would have assured a diligent investigator that Derek, if not perfect, was an effective and loving parent. He was also caring for two of Ayn’s siblings, older brothers, one of whom is also autistic. That’s right. Ayn is autistic. Sizeable commitment to be sure, but Derek viewed Ayn’s behaviour as entirely predictable and her disruptions when they occurred were manageable through his conversational persuasion. He was the Ayn Whisperer.

She was at home and happy, and she was also curious, understandably so, because she was autistic, and as an autistic child sometimes does, or, any child does, she scaled the backyard fence one afternoon and explored her neighbourhood. She didn’t venture far. The RCMP found her at a nearby neighbour’s yard. Derek felt he had no option but to call for help when he couldn’t locate her. But of course, RCMP must make reports, and the Ms. Cadieux’s Ministry was called in, before it was Ms. Cadieux’s ministry, and the administrator and social workers expected Derek to voluntarily sign a release form to let them take Ayn from him. Even if this appropriation was temporary, he was opposed to it, vehemently to say the least. So MCFD affected a surreptitious seizure of the child while she was at school. This was in June of 2011.

You read that date correctly. Even if Ayn was taken so she could be examined medically, socially and psychologically, even Hon. Cadieux will have to admit that three years is an excessive examination period and I would add, an unwarranted length of time to keep the child from her family and in the care of strangers who become simulated family. It doesn’t matter how positive the foster parenting has been, the conduct of the Ministry in this case is reprehensible, inexcusable. If Hon Stephanie Cadieux wants to make a significant mark on this Ministry during the brief time she holds this portfolio, because Ministers get switched around with frequency, I recommend that she delve with determination into the reasons why there are numerous cases of children being removed and then withheld from responsible parents and grandparents for extended times, and then meet that inquiry with suitable procedures to return children speedily. Perhaps she can expedite an unraveling of the mystery of red tape so that twelve-year-old girls do not miss three years of their lives with those who love them most.

Derek and Amie do not live together. Their marriage dissolved years ago, but with mutual respect Amie supported Derek’s single parenting of all three children. There is much that I do not know, but I am assuming Amie will be thrilled to see her daughter released from government care, even if she is returned to Derek. If the judge, on the recommendation of MCFD, rules that Ayn be returned to Amie, and Amie is able and willing, as I believe she is, that may be a wise step as this young woman enters her teen years. I trust that Derek will acknowledge the wisdom of such a move. Furthermore, I trust as well that both parents will find ways of allowing these children to see each other frequently. The countdown of days has begun again.

AYN'S APPREHENSION WAS UNREASONABLE - WILL THE MINISTER LISTEN?

In June 2011, MCFD’s decision to apprehend Ayn was the result of under-investigation. I believe it was over-reaction rather than over-investigation. Sending out the child protection team was standard procedure following an RCMP involvement in a child-search. However, when social workers arrive unannounced with document in hand, requesting a parent’s signature to a voluntary surrender of a child, without engaging in a sincere discussion of the challenges of parenting an autistic child, and in this specific case, the reasonable explanation for the child’s wandering from home, and possibly as well, asking how the Ministry could actually facilitate Derek’s job of caring for three children, two of whom are autistic, then the MCFD action was flagrantly unreasonable, illogical, unfounded, groundless, senseless and irrational.

A COMPUTER SYSTEM IS NOT MCFD's ONLY PROBLEM

A Colossal Failure - That's the System that Manages 
Child Protection in B.C.

Today I am featuring a blog remark by Ray Ferris who is responding to a Victoria Times Colonist article written by Lindsay Kines and entitled Children's watchdog says computer system for social workers a “colossal failure,” dated January 25, 2013.  Hers is a copyrighted piece so Ms. Kines credited remarks are seen in red. Ray’s are seen in blue.

DARREN STONE, TIMES COLONIST

The article is subtitled, MARY ELLEN TURPEL-LAFOND, THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, SAYS A DEEPER LOOK AT THE PROVINCE'S INTEGRATED CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS NEEDED.  

“We’re in deep trouble,” she said. “This is a deeply serious problem,” were the words of Representative for Children and Youth Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, in response to a consultant’s report released by the province on Thursday, which confirms her warning from a year ago that the $182-million integrate case management system is woefully deficient and inefficient. 

MY ART HANGS IN THE CONSTITUENCY OFFICE OF STEPHANIE CADIEUX MLA FOR SURREY PANORAMA

Stephanie Cadieux was elected to the BC Legislature to represent the people of Surrey-Panorama on May 12, 2009.

Ms. Cadieux was voted one of Business in Vancouver’s Top 40 under 40, in 2007. Prior to her election as a Liberal MLA Stephanie worked as director of marketing and development of BC Paraplegic Association. She is an active community volunteer having served as president of Realwheels Society, Ambassador for the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Foundation as well as a member of the advisory panel and as a researcher with International Collaboration On Repair Discoveries (ICORD). This is a focused dedication because she has herself lived with a spinal injury since the age of 18. She and her husband have resided in Surrey for seven years and when not working she enjoys travel, art and sailing. She has traveled extensively in Europe, Central America, Africa and North America, often as a delegate for International Development work with people with disabilities. I wish her every success as she seeks to represent her constituency effectively.

The Surrey Arts Council contacted me last week with a request from Ms. Cadieux for me to hang a couple of my paintings in her constituency office. I installed four paintings reflective of the agricultural setting of south Surrey. I met Stephanie and enjoyed brief conversation with her before her busy afternoon of receiving guests began. Yesterday, September 10th was the grand opening of her new constituency office.

My paintings will hang in this office for three months. My art has also been on display in the Surrey office of MP Sukh Dahliwal. I am involved as one of many artists in the Community Art Displays whereby we exhibit our work in the offices of Surrey MLAs and MPs, the Surrey Board of Trade, Surrey Tourism Association, the Arts Council of Surrey Office and other Surrey businesses.

Photo credit: Ron Kubara for Stephanie Cadieux portrait and photo with Mr. Campbell
Other photos: Ron Unruh

Surrey Arts Centre, 13750-88 Ave., Surrey; 604-501-5566; www.arts.surrey.ca

Stephanie Cadieux's Constituency Office:
120 – 5455 152nd Street
Surrey, BC
V3S 5A5
Website