MCFD TENDS TO LEAP TO LITIGATION

Ray Ferris, my writing colleague for GPS (Advocacy Blog) has written another article to the Times Colonist. He himself had a helpful and rewarding career in the Ministry of Children and Family Development dealing justly for children and parents and caregivers. Later as he saw bureaucratic missteps and bungling he became an outspoken critic as well as an advisor.

Look at his latest piece.

MCFD's DEFAULT LEAP TO LITIGATION

            The Clarke government always seems to be willing to spend more on battling its citizens than on helping them. They leap to litigation with no apparent heed for the cost. We know about the big ones like the years taken to lose a dispute with the teachers, the millions covering up the fired health researchers and the six million spent bailing out Basi and Verk. We will never be allowed to know the true cost of all those millions spent battling against families and innocent children in family court.

   

            Suffice it to say that if a family has its children removed under the CF&CSA, they will need at least $200,000 in legal fees to get them back, regardless of the merits f the case. Several cases have cost far more. Parents need deep pockets, a valuable house or a very generous lawyer. The late Doug Christie worked free for the B. case for two years. Hittrich law advanced well over a million. The director was willing to fight for a year in a losing cause and the case still goes on. A Victoria lawyer gave $700,000 worth of service in a case, where the judge had already returned the children under supervision. The director wasted a full week of Hittrichcourt time just quibbling about details of a continued order. What did that cost the taxpayer?

   

            Then there was the little Metis child SS. She was snatched from her Metis foster home over the pleadings of Ms. Turpel-Lafond and sent to strangers. The loving foster parents and extended family spent nearly a million dollars trying to keep her. How much did the taxpayer spend? Now their Metis adoption of her has been legally validated, the director spends more millions battling them and the child in the courts of the North-West-Territories. Sad.

From Ray Ferris. # 105-3900 Shelbourne St., Victoria V8P 4H8,   250 477 5723

METIS FOSTER PARENTS LOSE APPEAL - CHILD TO BE SHIPPED TO ONTARIO

Foster dad with Metis girl, photo courtesy of foster mom 

Recent news of Metis toddler - A British Columbia foster family has lost its fight in the province's highest court to keep a Metis toddler they have raised since birth. You should read this week's Times Colonist report that reveals that the B.C. foster parents will not give up. Perhaps you will share Ray Ferris' dismay which he expresses in the piece that follows. He has sent this letter to the Times Colonist. Ray is an author and advocate.

"Your Times Colonist report reminds us that the social workers want to rip this child from the only home she has known and place her with strangers in Ontario, regardless of the consequences. Not only does this fly in the face of common sense, but it ignores all knowledge of early childhood development and good social work practice. Such action also flouts the imperatives in the CF&CSA defining the best interests of children."

    

"The Act lists the following guidelines and rules.

1.Preservation of kinship ties and attachment to extended family are urged.

2.Cultural identity of aboriginal children should be protected.

3.Decisions on young children to be timely.

4. Continuity of care is important.

5. Quality of relationship with caregiver.

6. Child’s cultural, racial and religious heritage to be protected.

7. Where the child is aboriginal placement must be with extended family or in cultural community, or with another aboriginal family."

"Clearly, all these conditions are satisfied with the present Metis foster parents, who also wish to adopt. Courts have defined Metis people as aboriginal. There is a section that says that placement in the same home as siblings should be considered. The Act also states that all the best interests must be considered in context and that judgement must be used. Note that no one right is declared as paramount. However, the Ministry director continues to insist that sibling placement must supersede all other clauses. Obviously the time has long gone when this would have had any benefit and it is perverse to cling to it. The law allows him to do so without challenge."

"Children need to be stabilized in the first year of life. Otherwise they are prone to developing a range of anxiety disorders, which can scar for life. Unfortunately, the scantily trained unregistered social workers of the children's ministry seem to be blissfully ignorant of such knowledge."

From Ray Ferris 105-3900 Shelbourne St. Victoria. Phone 250 477 5723

My Previous GPS blog posts associated with this case are found at these links:

GPS: Metis Child Is In a Mess: Feb 15, 2016 ... She was not permitted to go to a Métis cultural event being held in her honour. Why would the Métis Federation hold an event to honour her?

‪GPS: METIS GIRL'S GOOD NEWS - FOR NOW: Mar 7, 2016 ... The good news is coming but first read the reprise of this situation. If you have been following the long running story of the two-year old Metis ..

GPS: Times Colonist Story about Metis Toddler: Jan 30, 2016 ... FOLLOWUP opinion by Ray Ferris, my advocacy colleague, an experienced ...

GPS: Emergency News of Little Metis Girl: Feb 27, 2016 ... If you have to look back a few posts that pertain to the metis child being taken from her foster parents who ...

TIMES COLONIST STORY ABOUT THE METIS TODDLER

A FOLLOWUP opinion by Ray Ferris, my advocacy colleague, an experienced former Ministry of Children social worker and author of 'The Art of Child Protection."  Contact the author to order a copy of his book, rtferris@telus.net.

The Times Colonist story of the foster parents trying to adopt a child is a classic example of conflict between the different rights of children. Children’s rights are set out in the Child Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA). Children’s best interests are paramount and include the right to continuity of care and the right to kinship contact. Priority should be given to foster placement with relatives. The Act urges timely decision making for young children. Cultural preservation is urged, especially for people of aboriginal origin.

No individual right is paramount, but some rights become more important as time passes and conflicts can occur. It is then that a balance between rights must be sought, requiring good judgement. Unfortunately, good judgement seems to be a scarce commodity in this ministry.

RAY FERRIS TO TIMES COLONIST AND MPPs

A letter from Ray Ferris - Written to the Times Colonist  

Ray Ferris is a retired child-protection worker and the author ofThe Art of Child Protection.

"You report another child welfare horror story. Such professional incompetence is entrenched and institutionalized in British Columbia and many other child welfare jurisdictions. The Internet is rife with horror stories. Ian Mulgrew of the Vancouver Sun recently covered a case that cost an estimated two to three million dollars before the children’s ministry withdrew from the case and returned the children to the mother. Anyone can read the scathing judgement here.

WHAT WE GET FOR WHAT WE GIVE

We pay good money to operate a government for the people.

We pay our taxes, all of us do, as citizens of the commonwealth, the federal government of Canada, and the British Columbia government for a province that we call home. We love it here and together we are the people.

Our expectations are routine enough. We want reliable representation by ordinary people standing in on our behalf to create and manage respectable law and policy to service people and the communities in which we live.

We value statements by government agencies that have the sound of credibility such as “In the best interests of children.” We believe innocently, naively that all agencies mean what they say, or that all employees within them, operate with authenticity.

Then something like this happens.

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.

LISTEN TO THE CHILDREN / Part 355 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Listen to the Children

I am advocating for three children taken as an infant, a toddler and a small boy, the eldest of whom is now six years of age and each of these children in the same family have been outside their parental home for exactly three years. Children have memories. Some memories are indelible. The two oldest children have recently had many memory buttons pushed as they have been permitted by a Judge's order, to have visitation with their parents in the parental home for six hours each Saturday. These children have been thrilled to see familiar items, furniture, toys. Despite the change of houses in the children's absence, there are sufficient reminders of a home life to which these children are responding with longing for permanency. The regional Ministry of Children department should be gratified by the high comfort level these children have with their birth parents. That will be the just response. Social Workers whose interest is acknowledged to be in the child's best interests should be pleased with this strong indication of compatibility between children and parents and the home environment. That will be the professional response.

We are well beyond this point already in this case, but the social workers and supervisors associated with the Bayne file should be trashing their previous risk assessment of Paul and Zabeth, and taking a fresh, transparent look at these parents and their children and their family and home. Among the thousands of cases MCFD handles each year in British Columbia, the Bayne family stands out as one with incredible promise for success and happiness. MCFD should be pleased to say to the Bayne family, “We wish you well.”

But “It's before the courts.” Yes, indeed it is. MCFD made sure of that, but only after almost three years had passed. It should not have come to this. The Baynes should not be on pins and needles now, waiting to learn whether or not these three children will have their hopes extinguished and their memories forever scarred. It should not have come to this, and the Baynes are not to blame, certainly not the children, and arguably not the parents. Paul and Zabeth will not harm their children. Paul and Zabeth did not harm their child in the past. That's what they said – three years ago in 2007, and in 2008 and 2009 and still in 2010. No evidence exists to contradict that testimony.

We are in an awkward time here, a disgusting period of waiting for a judicial response to legal presentations wherein these parents have been compelled to defend their entitlement as the parents of these three. No effort and no amount of words were spared to convince a judge that Paul and Zabeth had forfeited their rights to parent these children. It was ugly. It is ugly.

Listen to the children. “Can we stay now?”

HON. MARY POLAK / Part 297 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

MLA Hon. Mary Polak Langley Minister of Children and Family Development and Minister Responsible for Child Care

As recently as June 2010, Times Colonist columnist Lindsay Kines reported that the NDP was calling for Mary Polak to resign as Minister of Children and Family Development. Frankly, that is no solution to anything about which we have been writing for months. Ministers come and go with regularity as it is. This opposition attack against a Liberal Minister came as a result of the tensions between MCFD and Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the Representative for Children and Youth. More specifically it related to the safety of children in the Child in the Home of a Relative program. Turpel-Lafond's claim was that a great many of the children could be at risk within the program. Maurine Karagianis, NDP children's critic jumped on this, saying that Turpel-Lafond had provided convincing evidence that many caregivers were never background checked and some have criminal records and that one in three children might be at risk. Polak pointed out that while the program is subsumed by her ministry, these are really not children in the care of the province. They are in the care of family, some of whom require income assistance. Further, in any specific case where risk is indicated, the Ministry is quick to do assessment and respond appropriately. I found interesting the response by the B.C. Association of Social Workers who echoed Karagianis's concern over what it called Polak's “dismissive” response to the Representative's report. That was in June and of course Mary Polak did not resign in the face of that political manoeuvre nor should she have.

Political gamesmanship does not address our issues with MCFD case stories. The subject of our complaints is the decisions made within communities by MCFD Directors and social workers as they daily interpret their governing ACT.  Our focus is upon the empowerment mandated to MCFD by the ACT that creates such heartache for families which do not require such invasive intervention. Mary Polak needs to sit with troubled parents for many days and just listen. Then she needs to lead the campaign to enact true legislative changes which effectively reduce this constant criticism of MCFD by compelling accountable and compassionate child, youth and family social work. She needs to create dialogue with Turpel-Lafond so that the two agencies harmonize efforts to improve lives. She may need to stand up to some of her colleagues to say, this is the way we are going to do things. Is she up to that task? That's the question. Her credentials are weighty. Do they qualify her or signify the right stuff to truly make a difference to children and families? I sincerely hope so. Minister's don't have much time in these offices to affect great change.

(Bio Material from her site) She was re-elected to the B.C. Legislature in 2009, having represented the constituents of Langley since 2005. On June 10, 2009, Mary Polak was appointed Minister of Children and Family Development and Minister Responsible for Child Care. She serves on the Executive Council of the Government of B.C. Prior to her Cabinet post she served as the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health for the Conversation on Health. Ms. Polak previously sat on the Cabinet Committee on New Relationship Coordination and the Government Caucus Committee on Social Development as well as on the Government Caucus Committee for Natural Resources and the Economy, the Select Standing Committees for Children and Youth, Education and Public Accounts, the Cabinet Committee on Agenda Development and the Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act.

Prior to being elected to the Legislative Assembly, Mary Polak was director of operations for a small polling and research firm and was a trustee and former chair of the Surrey School Board. Under her leadership, Surrey became the first school district in B.C. to balance its books according to generally accepted accounting principles. She led an initiative to make Surrey the first school district in the province to publish school-by-school results for both elementary and secondary schools. Throughout her nine years in local government, Mary worked with many regional and provincial organizations. As a representative to the Lower Mainland Consortium of School Districts for Successful Settlement, she twice presented briefs to the Federal Immigration Commission. In the mid 1990s, Mary chaired the Council of British Columbia School Districts and in 2003, was elected to the board of directors of the British Columbia School Trustees Association. Mary enjoys living in Langley's Willoughby area.

Paul and Zabeth Bayne – Part Seven – The Alarming Case of B.C. Government's Miscarriage of Justice

Secrecy helps trample parents' rights

The title I have taken directly from the article to which I am referring you today. It was printed in the Times Colonist on June 21, 2009. As you read the piece you will detect that Mr. Ferris is alluding to the Bayne case and is keenly dignostic about the treatment given to Paul and Zabeth Bayne and their children these past two plus years by case workers and superiors within the Ministry of Children and Family Development and consequent Foster Care programmers. I pay attention to his disapproval because Mr. Ferris worked as a social worker and supervisor for more than 30 years and since his retirement in 1988 he has been an advocate and an author. He has written a textbook on child protection. From his well written article I have quoted a large portion of the document that you can read in its entirety at this Canada Court Watch site.

“When young children enter care, early planning is essential so that stable life plans can be ensured. In contested cases, it is important to have good factual evidence. This means direct eyewitness evidence and not the opinion and hearsay evidence so often presented. Parents have rights to due process. They have a right to clear statements about what evidence will be offered and a right to competent legal representation.

On the surface, the Child Family and Community Services Act seems to support these principles. Hearings must be within 45 days and temporary orders no more than one year. The child's best interests are paramount and include stability, continuity of care and kinship contact. Timeliness is essential. In practice, the principles are ignored and regularly derailed. The long, complicated act seems designed as a source of revenue for lawyers. When first enacted, it ground the family courts almost to a halt for over a year. Children's best interests depend on opinion, and ministry bureaucrats think only their opinion counts. Family court becomes as adversarial as criminal court, while child welfare gets lost in legal bickering. Neither the courts, the Ministry of Children and Family Development directors nor defence counsels monitor timelines. Cases get bounced from judge to judge. Any piece of social legislation can be used as a tool or a weapon. The choice lies with those in authority. Legislators little realized that they offered as many weapons as tools, but the resolutely adversarial Children's Ministry quickly found them. A recent Times Colonist editorial showed how the ministry behaves as if a child's right to privacy is a paramount right, which can trump all the other rights in the act. They cloak everything in secrecy and withhold information that people have a right to know. A typical case recently covered by the CBC illustrates these matters. A couple had three children, the younger ones born 14 weeks and six weeks prematurely. Such children can be very fragile. When the parents took the six-week-old to hospital, a doctor reported that the child's condition was due to abuse. At first, the ministry's director acted reasonably and took charge of the child, who stayed in hospital. With only inferred evidence on the older children, they took them into care, placing them with relatives. Then the evidence wilted. Other doctors strongly disagreed with the first diagnosis. Courts had previously declared the type of evidence unreliable. A police investigation found no evidence. After seven months the parents had spent $60,000 on lawyers with no progress, and in despair they went to the media. Following Global TV coverage, the director promptly removed the children from relative care with armed police, apparently just to assert his authority. They have since been moved three times. Last July, the director's lawyer told him the case was weak and he should return the children. In spite of this, the director is pursuing the case aggressively and seeks a continuing care order. A hearing will not take place until March 2010, and the parents -- already heavily in legal debt -- cannot raise the $100,000 needed for defence. Blameless or not, they stand no chance of getting back their children.”

Clearly, Ferris says this because he believes the ACT is flawed and more effective staffing is required and parents need to be better represented. Compassion, discernment, altruistic spirit do exist in our larger community and since this article appeared in June 2009, lawyer Doug Christie has accepted to represent the Baynes. Together with knowledgable advocates like Mr. Ferris and respected legal representation, and morale boosters like all of us, we can witness a salvation of a family and deny Ferris' ominous final statement above written in June 2009 before Mr. Christie came alongside..