MCFD ERRED IN MÉTIS CHILD'S CASE

This is the complete document containing four earlier segments that demonstrate how MCFD purposed to send SS from B.C. to ONT., regardless of regulations that should have prevented this action.

MCFD ERRED IN MÉTIS CHILD'S CASE

What influenced the Director of the Ministry of Children and Family Development to arrive at the decision to remove an almost three-year-old girl named SS from her Métis foster parents in B.C. with whom she has been since birth, in order to send her to live with non-Metis parents in Ontario, where her two Métis siblings live? Let's begin with the foundation that each of the two placement options in this case, the BC home and the Ontario home are good homes for this child.

That last sentence may reveal the decisive factor, the genealogical kinship. In this child's case you may agree that it was not enough to justify MCFD's choice. Using the Ministry's own legislated and documented criteria for determining placements, I will now tell you why the MCFD decision was unreasonable, and not in the child's best interests.

First, the regulation states that preference is shown for a placement that permits a child's contact with birth parents in order to enrich the child's sense of identity, provided that birth parents welcome the contact. A beneficial relationship was already established between the child and the birth parents in the same B.C. city during the three years she has lived with the Metis foster parents in B.C. In fact, these birth parents in B.C. are open and have repeatedly begged that the foster parents be allowed to adopt their child. Distance makes it impossible to maintain such quality contact with the family in Ontario and no attempt was made by either Ontario foster parents or birth parents.

Second, consideration is given to the child's physical, intellectual, and emotional needs and to her level of development. A professional appraisal revealed that irreparable damage would result to these aspects of the child's life if a move involved this significant trauma of removal from the foster family and a move to strangers in Ontario. In her B.C. foster home these needs were met for the first thirty months and her development progressed above norms.

Third, is the importance of continuity in care.  In the child's B.C. home, her continuity of care was uninterrupted until MCFD removed her in preparation for her transport to Ontario. That interruption was justified in the belief that the long term benefits of three sisters together will outweigh the loss of these formative years.  

Fourth, is the importance of a positive relationship with a parent as well as a secure sense of being a member of the family. SS was firmly established in her B.C. family consisting of foster mom and dad and older grown children. When the decision to move the child was being considered by MCFD and when BC foster parents contested this before the court in 2016, the child had no relationship with the prospective adoptive parents in Ontario or the two older Métis sibling sisters whom SS had never met. There was then and there may still be a high probability that a 'positive relationship' cannot develop with the other sibling girls.

Fifth, is the importance of preserving the child's cultural identity. The Ontario parental couple has not been in a position to preserve Métis culture. In distinction the B.C. foster family are committed to the preservation of the child's Métis identity and have taken steps to encourage this. The B.C. Metis Federation has been active and outspoken in their support of the child being kept with her Métis family and with part of the Métis community in her home province.

Sixth is the preservation of the child's cultural, racial, linguistic and spiritual heritage. The Ontario parents, upright and well intentioned for SS, are not themselves of Métis heritage.  With respect to their two adopted Métis sisters, no evidence exists of a continuing identification with the Métis community. There is no reason to believe that SS can have her heritage preserved in her new home. In the B.C. foster family, LM, the foster mom has Métis cultural heritage, and she and the child were well connected to the B.C. Métis Federation, community life and ceremonies. Furthermore, the Métis birth father is in Victoria and easily accessible.

Seventh, is consideration of the effect on the child because of a delay in making a decision about her future. Delays were created by the MCFD's repeated extensions of a Temporary Care Order (TCO), as though this was a probationary period for the foster parents and the foster child. Yet the child came to LM and RB when she was three days old and was with them for almost three years and no probationary period was required, and she could have been adopted to these foster parents as they requested, except for the Director’s refusal to consider this. 

Eighth, is the Parenting Capacity of each parenting couple. Both parenting couples enjoy reputations as good and responsible parents.  In Ontario, both parents have full-time jobs and the two sibling sisters have special needs. In B.C. both parents are employed full time but at home, and the mother (LM) is certified in ECE and Infant and Toddler Care and Special Needs.

Ninth, consideration is given to the other members of a family, the extended family. I have no information about the Métis sisters' interaction with extended family members of the Ontario family. In the B.C. foster family there are two older sisters and two older brothers.  These sisters are committed to the care of SS and one of them has certification in childcare. One of the brothers is particularly attached to SS and she to him.

Tenth, is the matter of the siblings, and the possible value or merit of seeing all three placed together. Most jurisdictions recognize that when two or more bonded siblings are in need of placement, for whatever unfortunate circumstance, a humane consideration requires that their trauma not be increased by splitting them up into separate homes. This situation does not apply to SS.  The two “biological” sibling sisters were born in Ontario and have been total strangers to SS, who was born in B.C. when her birth parents moved there. One professional opinion states that there is high probability/risk that there will be failure to bond and failure therefore of adoption. In this regard, LM and RB expressed commitment to helping SS meet her siblings when she would be deemed stable in her present B.C. home and able to understand the nature of such a meeting.

Eleventh, is the matter of Territoriality/regionality.  LM and RB as well as the birth parents live in B.C. where the child named SS was born.  The B.C. Adoption Act requires placement of a child in B.C. In order to affect the move to Ontario, MCFD manipulated existing legislation. The only language used by the MCFD for many months was “adoption”. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Adoption Act means what it says, and that adoption of a B.C. child cannot legally occur in another province, and by residents of another province, the MCFD abruptly changed its language to “guardianship” in Ontario, and later to a “foster parent agreement.”  Surprisingly, the B.C. Courts have accepted this deviation by the MCFD. While initially, SS has been sent to Ontario as a foster child with foster parents, the clear intention is that she will be adopted under Ontario Adoption legislation and with that comes loss of control by B.C. Further, the understanding is that B.C. must reimburse Ontario for a monthly supplementary grant to adoptive parents for this out of province sibling. 

SS IS MÉTIS. WHY WASN'T THAT RESPECTED?

You know the girl's story don't you? News networks across the country carried it for several months as the foster parents fought the MCFD in court for good reason. The case is saturated with cultural issues because S.S. is Métis. So is her foster mother Métis.

The term "Métis" derives originally from the French adjective metis that referred to something that was half of one thing and half of another, and then subsequently, referred to someone whose father and mother were of different races, or mixed-race. The Métis are a specific indigenous people group initially developed as the mixed-race descendants of unions between First Nations people and early European settlers.  Over time in Canada, many mixed-race people married within their own group, maintaining contact with their indigenous culture. A distinct and unique culture was developed. Métis are recognized by the Federal government as a segment of the aboriginal community of Canada.

As far as the birth parents and the foster parents were concerned, according to Métis customs, L.M and her husband RB had adopted S.S. That arrangement occurred soon after the child's birth. S.S. has lived with her mom and dad (foster parents) since she was three days old. This is her family. As I described yesterday, she was adopted by virtue of an Aboriginal Custom Adoption, a provision made possible by B.C. legislation. MCFD knows that.

This Métis heritage is a significant factor in this case.

That underscores the offense that the Métis and specifically the foster parents of S.S. feel, that no consultation occurred that demonstrated respect for either Métis culture and practice or wishes or for the Children and Family for that matter. Despite the objections of the BC Métis Federation that continues to protest the relocation of the Métis foster child to a non-Métis family in Ontario, the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) removed her from the Métis foster parents, who have cared for this little girl for the past 3 years, and who had applied for formal adoption of the child already legally adopted by Aboriginal Custom adoption.

BY ALL MEANS look up the little girl's Facebook page ‘Bring Home Baby S’, and the two websites that tell her story, bringsshome.ca or bringsshome.com.  

THEY DESPERATELY WANTED HER

Adoption of Aboriginal Children

There have been enough of these cases in the past, that long ago some legal parameters were established that would service aboriginal children's care responsibly while respecting their heritage. On the B.C. government's own website the fundamental understandings are unmistakably stated.

When Aboriginal children and teens are in need of care, the B.C. government's own standard states, Research and experience indicates that children who grow up connected to their culture do better. Aboriginal children and teens feel more at home when they live with a family that helps them stay in touch with their culture and community. (BC government's own page states this.)

The government urges competent compassionate caregivers to consider opening their homes to children in need and furthermore appeals to these people to consider adopting the children. One might ask whether there are any special provisos with respect to adoption of aboriginal children and youth? Yes there are and these too are unambiguously stated in the government's own guidelines.

With respect to this particular case of the little Métis girl named S.S. the government page makes provision for an Aboriginal Custom Adoption.  Here is the government's own statement. "Aboriginal children in care need homes with Aboriginal families whenever possible – to help them stay connected with their extended family and community." The agreed upon system or policy established between the B.C. government and the Métis or aboriginal communities is as follows. "The custom adoption process makes it possible for Aboriginal families, organizations and communities to use a culturally appropriate way of planning for Aboriginal children; respects the customs and traditions of the First Nations and/or Aboriginal community of the child; ensures Aboriginal children maintain their cultural, linguistic and spiritual identity. It’s recommend that adoptive parents get a lawyer to help them in their application to have a custom adoption recognized by the Supreme Court."

Foster mom (Métis) and foster dad enjoyed S.S. in their home and family life for three years, unnecessarily long if MCFD intended ever to move her, and during that time, foster parents had in fact conducted an Aboriginal Custom Adoption with approval of the birth parents. They had also applied for formal recognition of this adoption, but MCFD rejected this by filing orders to remove her and move her to Ontario.

Aboriginal Child and Family Development pages on the B.C. Government WebSite

BY ALL MEANS look up the little girl's Facebook page ‘Bring Home Baby S’, and the two websites that tell her story, bringsshome.ca or bringsshome.com. 

MS. PALMATER'S ARTICLE: WHY WE ARE IDLE NO MORE

WE ARE IDLE NO MORE

Even a cursory review of this particular article provides essentials to understanding what is a centuries old contest coming to yet another assertive and perhaps crowning moment. It is unmistakably resonant of the peaceful marches decades ago in the United States as the African American community articulated its solidarity with millions of marchers. Equal rights and opportunities transformed all areas of American life, government, sports, education and entertainment. Perhaps the steadfastness of First Nations will have an outcome that honours them and uses their lands and resources in ways that benefit Canada for everyone living and generations to come.

PHOTO CREDIT: HUGH WESLEY

The Ottawa Citizen’s article entitled ‘WHY WE ARE IDLE NO MORE,’ written by Pamela Palmater is commendably and methodically rendered for a short piece and my cursory extractions and re-arrangement have been my own informative exercise. Reading Ms. Palmater’s material, processing it, writing down thoughts for my own sake, has made me more sensitive to the heart of First Nations peoples . Now I have not heard the government’s case(s) but I have a sense that it cannot be as compelling because I suspect it will be defensive and will have to be all about money. (Credit: If I have not made it clear enough, every fact, idea, opinion and concept expressed below is not original with me but appreciated from Ms. Palmater’ work.

SHOULD FOSTER CAREGIVERS BE CALLED 'PARENTS'?

Subsequent to yesterday’s blog statement I found a Master of Social Work thesis written by Serena Kullar in which on page 24 using her research she supports the notion I presented yesterday. I said that the term ‘foster parents’ is confusing, not to adults but rather to the children. Caregivers for children who are removed from their biological family are generally of acceptable character and respectable intention and performance. Nonetheless, a child with a mom and or a dad, is abruptly expected by virtue of title to accept one or two strangers as parent. Whether the biological parent-child relationship has been satisfactory or deplorable, to identify someone else as mom or dad is a problematic expectation. It can break a child's heart or reinforce a horror. In a wholesome family like Derek's, the longer this foster relationship is sustained the more cavernous the distance between the biological parent and his child. In a case like Ayn’s this is an injustice for which the government will never be called to account.”

Serena Kullar has written, “When children are brought into care, the caregivers are referred to as foster “mothers” and foster “fathers” by the children and this results in birth mothers being stripped of their mothering role (Greaves et al., 2001). Instead, the authors suggest that foster carers should be referred to as aunts or uncles because this still allows children to acknowledge them in a close way, but more importantly, allows the mother to keep her title (Greaves et al., 2001). In the United Kingdom, the term foster parent is foreign, and the terms foster carer or caregiver are used to maintain connection to biological parents.”

Although in her paper entitled, "THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF SUBTANCE USING WOMEN IN BC’S CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM," the subject of Ms. Kullar’s paper is women in B.C. and particularly aboriginal women, prompting her to write that this nomenclature, ‘foster parent’, “symbolizes the devaluation of mothering by women of colour,” I contend that the terminology devalues biological mothering and fathering. A foster care-giver is not synonymous with mom and dad. My position on this I grant you is coloured by cases with which I am focused, namely those in which the parent or parents are able and responsible and in which the best interests of the children would be met by their return to their true mom's and dad’s care.    

 

Ms. Kullar is a senior member of the Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society

745 Clark Dr

Vancouver,  BC V5L 3J3
Canada

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND CP MEDIATION

Jenelle Schneider, Postmedia News

Ministry of Attorney General: The government website page for the Ministry of the Attorney General contains this page entitled Child Protection Mediation Program. In the post below I am quoting that page in its entirety and without comment from me. This is the mediation option of which the Attorney General’s Office wants you to be aware. I would like to hear what some of you who have been affected by MCFD's child protection practice think about this mediation theory and its delivery.
Attorney General

Child Protection Mediation Program

Sometimes parents or other people who are responsible for the care of a child disagree with child welfare workers in the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) or delegated Aboriginal child and family service agency (DAA) about a child’s safety and well-being. Child protection mediation is a collaborative way to reach agreement on the best plan for a child’s safety with the help of a specially trained, impartial person called a mediator.

THE TERRIBLE COST IS BORN BY PARENTS AND CHILDREN/ Part 414 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Frankly I don't know what it costs to fight the MCFD to regain custody of your children once they have been apprehended by the Ministry. I know that it has cost the Baynes very much. They had a home and property. Zabeth had a grand piano. That all became tinder in the inferno of conflict for which the Ministry has unlimited monetary ammo.

A number of you will be able to tell me how much it has cost you. And the horrible truth is that in most cases the apprehension is for temporary care. Yet in order to establish your ability and stability as a parent it will cost you money, which is so frequently that of which the parents have the least.

The entailed costs are customarily legal fees paid to a lawyer who knows the protocol and the legalese to converse in court and advise you about next steps. The truth is that the parents usually cannot afford the battle. (Look at the terms I am forced to use to describe this, “fight' and “battle”. )

Then there are other complications for these parents. The BC provincial shelter allowance policy is flawed because some parents require this to care for their family but when the children are removed even for temporary care, part of these monies is held back. The Ministry of Housing and Social Development (MHSD) cuts it off immediately, or at the end of three months, depending on the discretion of social workers assigned to the case. The dispiriting result is that parents are sometimes unable to retain their present housing and then the home to which they move is substandard and is not fit for children. Well guess what, the the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) is charged with helping parents safely receive their children back from temporary care, so when SWs advise the dropping of the shelter allowance, there is a significant contradiction happening here as in so many other areas of MCFD practice.

And then what? Well, the MCFD objective no longer is the return of the children to parents in that case.

Even in the cases where parents of children in care are granted a three month extension of the shelter allowance, that amount of time is inadequate for resolving the issues that MCFD has with the parents. Delays in process within child welfare and the courts are so common that before one knows it, six months, a year, eighteen months have gone by. Only the deprived parents and their children care. If it is a single parent, a mom on income assistance, just think how difficult it is for her to find housing. She cannot have her children back without good housing. It typically takes two to three years to locate adequate housing. It's around 35% of children taken into care that come from families receiving income assistance and get this, the majority are Aboriginal or single mother families.

With regard to MCFD, Family reunification should be this government’s number one priority. The Liberal Party over the past number of years has not prioritized this, has not funded it and therefore MCFD has diminished staff and resources and increased caseloads and a backed up court schedule has guaranteed that children will stay emotionally and psychologically disoriented within a foster care system for much longer than is either necessary or humane. I guarantee that unless some of you put this to Liberal and NDP party candidates they will not even be thinking about child welfare and protection and family unity.

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 no later than January 19th. Stay posted.

COMPARATIVES BETWEEN RCMP & MCFD / Part 363 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Let's Compare the investigative practices of MCFD and RCMP

None of this affords me pleasure. I have all of my life held our governments and their agencies and law enforcement in high esteem. I have had little reason to question their integrity and uprightness. This past year because of my introduction to the injustice suffered by one family I have been exposed to the scores of other stories close to home and I have grown apprehensive and dismayed. My research suggests that child protection has lost its way in every province and if that was not startling enough in every civilized society. What is equably written here in this blog is blasted out with vehement rhetoric in newspapers, magazines, online websites and blogs all over the world. I have developed a unpleasant case of cynicism over these months. I am unsure whether it is a treatable condition. For the short term, I know I will have relief when the Baynes get their children back. But what about the thousands of other children who must stay in care away from the parents with whom they desire to live and who love them.

RCMP Coat of Arms

Similarities between MCFD operations and the deficiencies in RCMP investigations

A pattern of deficiencies in RCMP investigative processes have been uncovered in recent well publicized cases and we recognize some parallels in the way MCFD is processing child protection cases. These are deficiencies have been mentioned:

a. A preset mentality that someone is guilty - MCFD is similarly inclined to form an attitude that the parent(s) is guilty of some kind of abuse or neglect and so does all in their power to produce evidence however insubstantial.

b. Ignoring available evidence or actual evidence that contradicts the preset - Similarly MCFD predictably filters acquired evidence in order to promote that evidence which supports its view of the situation and it has failed to interview available and potential witnesses who would not support the preset mindset.

c. Pressing forward with the prosecution process by laying charges anyway – Similarly MCFD in the Family Court will continue their prosecution or persecution of parents involved to deny them justice and convince the Court of the charges they have against the family. I have witnessed this myself.

Factors in MCFD investigations of families:

a) MCFD says that it takes a forensic approach. This is acceptable provided that a balanced and thorough investigation is conducted in response to allegations, but often allegations have little substance.

b) Typically MCFD looks only for that which is wrong or deficient in a family scenario and places the parenting in the worst possible light ignoring all their admirable points.

c) Often investigators accept the views of those who support allegations while ignoring the advocacy of those who support the family.

d) Interviewing children who are considered at risk often is inferior, while parents may not be interviewed at all prior to the removal of children.

e) Many notifications of concern about children and false allegations against parents are found by MCFD investigation to require no further action.

f) Nevertheless, many investigations are pursued with a purpose to find something significantly wrong in order to justify the previous over-reactive removal of a child or to justify a subsequent removal.

g) The agenda may involve a vindictive attitude against a parent or social engineering bent designed to put the children with more suitable caregivers, (as with the removal of aboriginal children in BC and other provinces).

h) If the initial allegation of abuse proves empty, MCFD will stretch other matters in order to come up with other problematic suggestions like neglect or lack of control.

This is inevitable and healthy