OUTRAGEOUS BUT NO SURPRISE - MCFD's appeal of the Walker Ruling

(This is an opinion piece by my colleague and guest writer, Ray Ferris 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.)

Hon. Stephanie Cadieux, Minister MCFD

    Many people are expressing outrage and horror at the appeal of the Walker judgement. I was fully expecting it for various reasons. First it is just what they always do. It is politics and has nothing to do with child welfare. Second it buys them time to work out a strategy and they count on time dulling the public awareness and lessens the political risk. Besides, they have already squandered a few million dollars of our money, so what is an extra million to protect that investment? The third reason is that they have already proved that they have terrible judgement, so we should expect another piece of bad judgment.

    I feel a bit sorry for poor Stephanie Cadieux. She made none of the decisions, but people are howling for her blood. All she can do is utter the lame platitudes prepared by her deputy minister and approved by the premier’s office. Mary-Ellen Turpel-Lafond may pour scorn on them but it runs off them like water off a duck’s back. The other device for buying time is to have the inquiry under Bob Plecas. It was carefully designed to go nowhere. The mandate was to review the policies and procedures of the MCFD and recommend changes. How does this relate to the Walker judgement? It doesn’t. Judge Paul Walker said that staff ignored court orders; misrepresented things to the court; lost their way professionally and ignored the facts when their minds were made up. In other words they were ignorant, insensitive and lacking a moral compass. So how can that be remedied by a policy and procedures fix? I can just see it on page 2008 of the Policy Manual. “Staff will act with sensitivity and good judgement at all times and will not lie to the court unless it is absolutely necessary.” The administrative fix has never worked and it never will.

    Turpel-Lafond told them that when you are in a deep hole, you should stop digging. Quite right, because the Child and Youth Representative is herself a judge and knows how the system works. You can bet your boots that those appeal court judges have read everything in the press and they are probably struggling to suppress their disgust and maintain impartiality. There is no guarantee that they will give leave to proceed with the appeal and no guarantee that they will let it drag on. So the government could soon be back at square one. If that happens, all they can do is to dispute the amount of money that is being asked for and, make no mistake, it will be in the millions. I already know the amount of money they offered in an out of court settlement before the misfeasance trial began. It was a lot, but not nearly enough to cover costs.

    Ron, I want to finish this entry on a positive note, so I will ask your readers to raise their hats and glasses to the Jack Hittrich Law Group, that carried the case gratis for millions of dollars worth of legal time. They are very high on my list of heroes.

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.

OPEN LETTER TO BRUCE MCNEILL / Part 174

April 22, 2010

Mr. Bruce McNeill, Director of Practice, MCFD Fraser Region

Mr. McNeill,
I respectfully submit an appeal to you today on behalf of Paul and Zabeth Bayne and their three children.

You are fully informed that Paul and Zabeth Bayne are presently involved in the hearing before Judge Tom Crabtree in which Mr. Finn Jensen, the Ministry of Children and Family Development counsel is seeking to obtain for you a Continuing Care Order for all three children. Mr. Jensen has nearly completed the Ministry’s presentation and now you and the Baynes are waiting for available court dates when the hearing will conclude with the Baynes’ lawyer, Mr. Doug Christie’s presentation of witness testimonies, evidence and conclude the hearing.

Most certainly Judge Crabtree understands this case. He understands that your team has held all three Bayne children in care for almost the entirety of two years and six months. He recognizes that the Ministry’s case is built upon a commitment to a disputed medical diagnosis of non accidental shaking induced injury to the youngest of the three children and that no evidence exists of injury or potential risk to the two older siblings. He is aware that no criminal charges proceeded to the Court with respect to the injuries of the youngest child. He appreciates that you have chosen to disregard your own counsel’s recommendation to return the two older children to the Baynes – a recommendation that Mr. Jensen conveyed to you because in his opinion there is no evidence to keep them and that he cannot win a case to retain them. These are reasons why even before the hearing proper has concluded; his Honour permitted Mr. Christie on behalf of the Baynes to submit to him their application for a variance of the original Interim Order of Dec 14, 2007 which placed the three children in Ministry care. The Baynes have asked the Judge for the return of the boys to their custody.

On April 29th 2010, Mr. Jensen will have opportunity in Court to express the Ministry’s objection to this application.

I knew Paul and Zabeth Bayne nine years ago when they were active in the church that I pastored. I enjoyed the privilege of officiating their wedding ceremony. I know them as deeply committed people of faith, hard working individuals, highly principled and enjoying a good reputation with hundreds of people. Their conscientious efforts to recover their family are understandable as is the significant support from friends and acquaintances who advocate for them. I myself have written daily blog posts to tell their story. This letter is posted today and copied to others.

I acknowledge your position and role within the Fraser Regional MCFD and your oversight of this highly publicized case. My sincere appeal to you today is to instruct your lawyer Mr. Jensen, to convey to Judge Crabtree on Thursday, April 29th, 2010 that the Ministry will not object to the immediate return of the two Bayne boys to Zabeth and Paul Bayne.

Sincerely,
Dr. Ron Unruh

On April 27, Mr. McNeill responded to me..

Dear Mr. Unruh
Thank you for your e-mail note.
Due to privacy concerns and the fact that this matter is before the Court it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this matter, but I do appreciate your interest and your concern for this family.
Yours truly, Bruce McNeill, Executive Director of Practice, Fraser Region