When on Wednesday the 19th,
Paul and Zabeth were informed that they would not hear the ruling for
another month, they worked through their own disappointment with
human emotion followed by reflective faith which has characterized
their travel and travail.
To grasp how this works for them I am
sharing the note that Paul and Zabeth sent to some people. Paul
wrote, “Well this was supposed to be the DAY. The day when we
would receive the news either one way or the other. God had other
plans. God said no, it’s not today. Be patient. We won’t know the
decision until the end of February now. Our children will be one
month older, Josiah is due at the end of February. God what are You
doing this time? Will this be another perfect timing thing again? I
will hope in God even if I don’t understand. Thank you for your
dedication and love toward our battle weary family. Thank God we are
not alone.”
This explains how they survive. Now you
may not want to so readily attribute the delay to God but rather lay
it at the doorstep of the judge or more generally the entire child
welfare system with its liberal latitude of powers. The difference is
fundamental. Their approach permits them to look forward with some
optimism and confidence and I would say objectivity. Others might
call it naivety. The other approach tends to result in persistent
anger and a dark pessimism. At least that's the way I perceive it.
And I don't know how one can possibly hope to work toward changing
the inadequacies and failings within the child welfare system when
one cannot speak without detonating.
So, what if at the end of February, not
only does the MCFD win this court order for continuing care of their
three children but also makes the move to apprehend a newly born baby
boy against whom these parents have lavished only mother's milk and
parental love? Will Paul and Zabeth come unglued then? Will their
faith in God erode overnight? I can answer neither question with
certainty.
Based upon their track record of
stalwart management of continuous disappointment for over three
years, I can venture a guess that they will not cave. And if the
worst of all possible outcomes occurred, that these children remained
in Ministry care and then inevitably in adoptive families, you would
find Paul and Zabeth at the forefront for child protection changes in
this country. They would champion parental rights. They would
articulate the transparency and services and provisions and
protections that the CFCSA was technically written to achieve but
which lazy people compromised, alleging insufficient funds and
programs.
And whereas some of you may take issue
with me for being too easy on the Ministry and Judiciary because I
have not personally had a child removed, Zabeth and Paul will
understand totally, the agonies of parents and still demonstrate a
control that permits them to engage with change-makers who will have
to listen to them. My question is, are there any change-makers out
there now who are prepared to give something other than lip service
to an aggressive plan to make child protection work more graciously
yet effectively?
What I think is that Paul and Zabeth are already change makers.
