WHETHER TO REMOVE OR TO RETURN

Parents frequently find it so difficult; it is almost impossible to recover custody of their children, once the child is removed. The emphasis of the cases changes from whether the child should have been removed, to should the child be returned. Now the parent must demonstrate entire cooperation with CPS, good behaviour, complete control of emotion and attitude and the tongue, and fitness to be reunited with the child. The need for the CPS agency to demonstrate the need for out-of-home placement evaporates. The burden of proof shifts from CPS to the parents by virtue of who has physical control of the child. It is a procedural spectacle. Once a child is removed it is very difficult for lawyers to get a child returned to parents whether the removal was appropriate or it wasn't. Children who are removed, are likely to remain in government care for a long time, perhaps years.

INTERFERENCE AND A CHILD'S EMOTIONS

Interference

When a child experiences removal from parents and placement with foster givers, the resultant emotions may be anguish, terror and abandonment. These reactions will be intensified if actual abuse has occurred at home. The feelings are exacerbated when reunion is delayed. For these reasons, laws generally insist that such removal must be done cautiously and sparingly. Parents, children and families should be free of unwarranted government interference in child-rearing. With that in mind, the law customarily asserts that removal of a child is only justified by imminent danger to a child's life or health. Even in such an instance, a hearing and an order is required and a prompt post-removal hearing follow.

THE EXCESS OF EMERGENCY CHILD REMOVAL

It's a bureaucratic spectacle. It is recognizable. Even lawyers acknowledge that within a network of social workers, police officers and judges who make the hard decisions for emergency child-removals, there is a tendency for these professionals to become self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating in all subsequent child protective proceedings. Where are the checks and balances, the accountability, the investigatory due diligence, particularly when it is also statistically evidenced that each day that a child lives in a foster care environment is another day closer to the termination of all parental rights. In a just system, good and responsible parents despite economic, emotional or relational challenges would be identified, would not be cut off from their children and would not lose in their lives, what is most precious to them. There is so much that a just child protection system can do to assist parents to raise their children safely and happily rather than to take the children away.

4

Ayn and Mommy within the past three years

Ayn and Daddy when she was a small girl 

4 days remain for the current TCO, Temporary Court Order by which the Ministry of Children and Family Development hold Ayn Van Dyk, in foster care in her 12th year of life. She was nine years of age when she was removed from her father's custody.

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.

ANOTHER UNWISE CHILD REMOVAL

The case to which I am making reference today is outside of Canada, outside of British Columbia and we might assume it is irrelevant to the focus upon Ayn Van Dyk, the subject of so many posts in this site for many months. It is not irrelevant.

There are numerous distinctions between the two cases but fundamentally, both cases contain an autistic child who wandered from home and hours later was discovered by police, and after reporting the incident to child protection authorities, case workers overreacted with the unnecessary outcome of distress and agony for parents and child due to separation for a prolonged time. 

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

None but Ayn Van Dyk’s parents, know the precise answer to the questions I will now raise, except. You will feel that you can guestimate an answer as I have. We, however, are limited by the extent of our knowledge of the care we believe Ayn received when in Derek’s care, and our lack of knowledge of the foster care she has received since her removal in June 2011.

Well, just think of that. From June 2011 until today February 23, 2013, Ayn has been absent from her family home where she shared life with her dad and two brothers and had access to and visits with her mother Amie. One would have to be convinced that the government’s plan/strategy when removing Ayn, has resulted in significant improvement of Ayn’s life, health, and wellbeing,  in order to justify her removal this sustained period of foster care.

So here’s what I want you to do. I will paste here paragraphs of the Ministry of Children and Family, and I will let you respond with your assessment. The following is found on this website page, http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/alternativestofostercare/index.htm

Alternatives to Foster Care

The ministry’s first priority is to keep families together, where possible. We also recognize that sometimes it’s necessary for a child to live outside the family home when their parents are temporarily unable to care for them. When that happens, there are a number of options and choices to be made. Was it possible for the Ministry to keep Ayn with her family in June 2011?

There may be circumstances where a child’s or youth’s needs are best met through foster care, and foster families play an important role in providing homes for vulnerable children. However, foster care is a temporary placement, usually with people who are strangers to the child.  Have Ayn’s needs been better met met through foster care than they could be in Derek’ home?

As an alternative to foster care, children may, in some circumstances, live with a relative or another significant person with whom the child is comfortable and connected. Current research recognizes the benefits for children and youth to be cared for by relatives and others with an established relationship with the child when they are not able to remain in their parents’ care. Extended family care helps maintain family ties and enhances children’s opportunities to stay connected to their own families and communities. Was this option ever presented to Derek and Amie?

There are a number of options available for relatives or others to care for children and youth, including:

•  The Extended Family Program.

•  Placement with a Person Other than the Parent – If a child is removed from a family home because of safety concerns, a judge may make an order for the child to live in the custody of someone other than the child’s parents. If you care for a child under this type of order, you may be able to receive financial assistance. Did safety concerns drive the Ministry response in June 2011?  Did the Ministry do due diligence in studying Derek’s home and care ability?

Part 1 of 3, A BRIEF EMOTIONAL FLASHBACK

AYN, today, 18 mo older than when she left

Amie Van Dyk is mom to Ayn, the ten-year-old girl who has been in foster care since June 2011. Amie and her ex-husband Derek Hoare, have agreed that he should be the primary caregiver for their three children, who include two sons, older than Ayn. Derek has had custody and care of the trio since the parents’ marriage dissolved, at least that’s all the marital details any of us casual readers need to know. What is of importance to us if we care to understand the dynamic of this situation is that two of three children are autistic. One of them is Ayn. As it pertains to visitation with the children and other arrangements concerning them, Aime and Derek have a sensible relationship and understanding.

It was during the summer of 2011 that Ayn was playing in the back yard of the home in which Derek and the three siblings lived, that Ayn wandered off. Ayn is a lovely girl, playful, affectionate, and in some regards challenging. Derek who learned how to communicate tranquilly with her, always met the challenges capably. But a healthy father-daughter relationship does not eliminate a child’s curiosity, and on a June afternoon, Ayn decided to explore the neighbourhood.  When Derek noticed that she had scaled the high fence and left the fairly secure yard, he searched and couldn’t find her. Anxious about this, he called for police assistance, and three hours later Ayn was located in a neighbour’s yard just a couple of homes away. The reunion was joyful but also short-lived. Within a couple of days, MCFD showed up as two social workers with a voluntary surrender of custody form that Derek could sign, or they would simply remove the child without his permission. MCFD conducted that seizure at Ayn’s school one day.

Initial observation of the girl’s treatment following that removal, was then, and is now questionable to many, appalling to others. For some weeks the child carried a photo of her daddy, wanting him, missing him, wondering where he was and when he would come for her. And in the early weeks she was given medications, anti-psychotic drugs, a host of them was Derek’s informed allegation. Professionals may handle the aggressive episodes of an autistic girl that way. A loving parent predisposed to non-doping but rather communicative interventions, did not. That’s a brief history of the basic information. A volume of emotions goes along with the history.

THE CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND CHILD REMOVAL

The Canadian Bar Association B.C. Branch website has a page entitled ‘Child Protection and Removal.’ Valuable advice is offered there to parents of removed children as well as to ordinary citizens with responsibility to report suspected abuse or neglect of children. These look like diametrically opposed interests but not from the perspective of the law.

You can of course read it in detail by going immediately to the site but I will highlight some of the offerings there to whet your appetite.

YOU SHOULD KNOW WHEN YOU NEED A LAWYER

OUR CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES MUST BE OVERHAULED

Random Child shot-photo John Millar

Most children who do come to the attention of child welfare or child protective services, do so because of one or more of the following issues categorized as child abuse, child sexual abuse, neglect, physical abuse, and psychological abuse. When Ayn Van Dyk was taken from her father Derek’s home since he was the custodial and primary caregiver/parent there was no suggestion of either sexual, physical or psychological abuse. Neglect includes failure to take adequate measures to safeguard a child from harm and/or gross negligence in providing for a child’s basic needs. Cause for removing Ayn had to fall in the area of neglect. The Ministry presented a list of reasons commensurate with a neglect allegation but unproven and it doesn’t have to be proven in our system. The parent does not get his day in court to disprove the allegation(s) unless he has resisted all mediation attempts by the Ministry in which case he is deemed uncooperative and that further damages his case. The mediation attempts, the meetings, the consultations, the timing for all of it is contingent upon the will and whims of the Ministry, so a child’s life and mind and family is interrupted for instance, for going on eight months for Ayn and Derek and he mom Amie and her two brothers.

WE NEED A FORUM OF CHILD PROTECTORS AND CLIENTS

Over some time a transformation of democratic freedom has occurred so that enforced compliance to bureaucratic rules and codes is the obligation.

We should be deeply concerned with the actions of B.C.’s child protection services and other similar international agencies about which we read. Citizens need to be heard. They need a voice. There must be a forum, an audience that will listen to the heart cries of thousands of British Columbia’s population. Perhaps the citizens themselves must organize a conference to which news media are particularly invited. And if we move in this direction, we should know what brought us here.

A PROPER ASSESSMENT OF DEREK'S PARENTING

Identifying neglect or negligence and assessing risk is a multifaceted procedure. Seldom can social workers establish negligence in the care of a child based upon a single incident or event. Incidents with respect to an autistic child should be deemed an even greater challenge to assessing whether a parent is providing adequate care.

Proper procedure assumes that social workers will assemble a picture of the family as the context for understanding a specific incident. That picture will require conversations and information from numerous sources such as relatives, friends and neighbours and professionals. Always such information will anticipate variable degrees of reliability and yet social workers are expected to make judgements and then to act concerning the welfare of children in these cases. Sometimes they must act quickly.

UNDER THE GUISE OF GOODNESS

Some days ago I composed a poem to convey the essence of the legalized act of removing an autistic child named Ayn from her parent and home for a reason that cannot be justified to the social conscience. She left her back yard and daddy didn't know where she was for three hours. For that she was taken from him five months ago and one can only imagine what she is experiencing. 

UNDER THE GUISE OF GOODNESS
by Ron Unruh ©

“It’s pernicious” is what I said.
There seems no better word for what they do,
these snatchers guised as guardians.
A pretext it has become, this protection of a child
when the youngster safe and happy is detached
by strangers.

“It’s insidious” I say to portray the taking of a child
without the knowledge of her parents
frenzied and fuming at the abuse of their child
and their own liberties.
What right can squash parental rights with impunity
when due diligence and fairness are derelict
and justice seems a stranger on a democratic soil.

“It’s sinister” I proclaim to parents of all children
because their own fears mount with the mention
of the protectors’ names.
This is not the only child to be taken
for her best interests don’t you see.
Free she was and alert although unpredictable.
She seems a stranger now, deeply drugged but controlled.

Pernicious, insidious, sinister do you now agree
are the appropriate descriptors for her abductors.
She is not at home because she wandered, oh but
she is a precious girl, precocious and autistic
and therefore apt to wander.
This is punishment not protection and perhaps she thinks
that she did something terrible. Why not, since the captors
have never inquired about the health of the family.
Strangers to justice they are – these takers.


Derek Hoare / 778-240-6373 / Facebook: justiceforayn.com
Derek's email: iconoclast_ensues@yahoo.com
Fundraising email: aynsfreedomfund@gmail.com
WEBSITE: www.Justice4Ayn.com
PLEA FOR AYN: http://on.fb.me/pUnuk0
THE PETITION: http://bit.ly/mrfdlE
VISIT OUR BLOG: http://bit.ly/qqO7ig
FUNDRAISING: http://on.fb.me/noNues
DOCUMENT LIST: http://on.fb.me/nQassx   

DEREK'S PLEA FOR AYN

DEREK'S PLEA FOR AYN
By Derek Hoare

Derek and one of his sons on a hike

My name is Derek I am a single father of three wonderful young children, aged 9, 10 and 11; my youngest two have both been diagnosed with severe autism. Though a constant and challenging struggle, I have done my best to protect and nurture them, as I love them so much and have dedicated my life to their achievement of happiness. My youngest child is a bright and beautiful little spitfire named Ayn. She has and is blossoming so well here at home and has come so far to overcome her obvious disability, she does however continue to struggle and outburst when in other environments, particularly at school.

Ayn is bit older now, still a bright light

Ayn is naive and unaware of the dangers that exist in the world at large, so when on Sunday June 12th she escaped the backyard we were very worried for her safety. With each passing moment the likelihood that something terrible had happened increased, as Ayn should stand out from other children easily and should have been quickly spotted. Fortunately Ayn was discovered two doors down playing in a neighbour’s backyard; the neighbour had taken an afternoon nap which provided Ayn with the ability to play undisturbed. The challenges I have faced in caring for my daughter have been encompassing and life altering, these challenges are very dynamic and new challenges arise as fast as the old one depart. Now with her discovery of the neighbours nearby trampoline and pool, she will undoubtedly seek to return there, vigilance will be required to face this new found challenge, but it is one which I must now face just as I have with each prior challenge and as I would have to with our future challenges as well. As it stands today I may never get that opportunity.

BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD / 552

The concept of the ‘best interests of the child’ is a universal theme expressed in a variety of international and Canadian instruments of law and practice. But is it anything more than a theme? Does it actually have content? I am not certain that it does. It is cited with conviction in child protection care proceedings and custody battles but why? Such cases are never decided on the basis of that theme but rather the specific facts of the case. The concept of “best interests” is a part of the rhetoric of child protection agencies.

The deficit is that the modifier “best’ is not defined, in fact perhaps indefinable. Even the touted United National Committee on the Rights of a Child has not taken a position to define the term with precision. Without a definition, “best interests” has no constraints, and then while the trumpeted term sounds politically and morally correct, it can lead to wrong impressions, inaccurate assessments and unjust decisions.

PRIORITY: RETURN THE CHILDREN / Part 409 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

If the Ministry of Children and Family Development devoted as much time locally to develop plans to return children to their parents, as it does to justifying child removals and CCO's, fewer children would become traumatized and embittered, fewer children would be adopted, fewer families would be destroyed, fewer parents would be viewed as arch-rivals.

When the Child and Family Community Services Act was originated, the intention was clearly that the apprehension of a child would be a last resort. Social workers would be expected to ascertain the least disruptive measure by which to guarantee the safety of the children. Removing a child was then and is now understood to be a serious intervention. However, the social workers who do not walk away from their MCFD careers because they cannot tolerate the system that has evolved, are the social workers who are impaired by lack of time due to staffing shortage and case overloads and by the lack of resources caused by government cut backs of funding for services that if available, would facilitate returning children to their parental homes. Overloaded social workers often do not do proper assessment not only of parents but also of the available alternatives to apprehension. When other resources and options are unknown, unavailable or non existent, apprehension becomes not the last resort but one of the first or the only choice. I believe that is what has been happening in B.C. over the past ten years. Child Protection thereby breaches the spirit of the CFCSA and fails to defend the integrity of families or children's best interests.

The parents from whom I hear, have lost or are losing hope that their children will ever be returned to their homes because the Ministry is evasive and ambiguous about its expectations of parents, or resources are unavailable for an extended time or the MCFD changes the expectations midstream. It has appeared to me that reunifying families is not a priority to a director, supervisors, team leaders and therefore not to social workers either. It is far easier to spend time looking for more reasons to justify the continued care of children. This is a dismal alternative and a failure for our province of families.

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 within the next three weeks. Stay posted.

A LITTLE BALANCE PLEASE / Part 392 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

I know that many readers want me to castigate the Ministry of Children, all of its bureaucrats and all of its social workers and do this all of the time. That's the understandable mood when you feel wronged by an agency funded by your own tax dollars and worse, when you are actually experiencing the disruption of your family, your security, your happiness, your mental and emotional well-being and when your children are being subjected to turbulent changes far beyond your control. I understand that you want me to dedicate this forum to blasting what you perceive as 'the enemy.' So, I have to call for a little balance please.

I know that people embarking upon a career as a social worker do so for reasons other than monetary gain or power acquisition. The motivation is far more honourable than that. People get into social work because they desire to improve other people's lives. They may choose to work with children, youth, geriatric clients, psychiatric patients, families, parents or another one of the many concentrations. We are on this blog site because the subject matter has focused upon child protection social work, child removal, court issues and all of the associated heartaches and stresses. This particular blog has begun with one family's plight as its primary subject. While the Bayne family continues to be the recurring theme, their three year struggle has invited shared stories from countless other parents whose children have been removed from them for brief or extended periods of time. There have been wrenching tales of children removed forever from the biological parents. When many of the writers of comments are anonymous it is impossible to verify the stories. Nevertheless, there is a thread of identifiable veracity and a commonality of experiences that lead a reader to conclude that within the child protection arena, the early genuine, altruistic intention of social workers becomes bent or compromised by something. That's the reality with which we struggle. Why would social workers' reports contain skewed, exaggerated, unsubstantiated, untrue statements about parents or home situations? How could social workers allow themselves to act this way?

What unseen forces exist within the system that compel the worker to compromise the ideals with which the career began?

IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE US / Part 372 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Child Protection workers and administrators would like us all to understand what an almost impossible task they have. Well, impossible in the sense of making all citizens happy with the results of their work. They will tell us that a perfect balance is unachievable between not protecting children from abusive parents and not making unfounded accusations against innocent parents. Stated differently and more positively, it is difficult both to protect children and to correctly assess risk by parents. To which I and others will quickly declare, “Then become more proficient at the latter in a hurry.” What kind of nonsense is that anyway. CPS or MCFD should not even have the authority to do the one if they do not possess the skills to do the other upon which the first must be based. How stupid is this logic? “We can't always be right about whether there is a legitimate risk with these parents but we must protect the children at any cost so we are removing them anyway.” It is irresponsible for a government to condone and to empower an agency to be this frivolous with the lives of its citizens and with their human rights. We are not Hasbro, Nintendo or Mattel games to be played.

'Sunset Under Clouds' panorama of Vancouver BC by Thom Quine

When they are deciding whether a child should be removed from parental care, child protection workers and court judges must have a panoramic scope of inquiry. They must be able to see retrospectively as well as prospectively and I am concerned that we are not witnessing this kind of comprehensive welfare expertise. As in the case of the Baynes, the Ministry of Children would determine the future care of children based upon an uncertain historical understanding of whether the parents are truly guilty of harming one of their children or whether their conduct with their children  for these past three years  proves that they could never harm any of their children in the future. The thinking seems to be that the truth doesn't really matter when the safest possible social action is to remove the children from the parents about whom the Ministry is apprehensive.

There has been what I suppose is a predictable tendency that has occurred over several decades. In the past it may have been that many cases of parental abuse or neglect were overlooked or ignored or possibly unrecognized. Society and children were poorer for this unfortunate neglect. In recent years substantial modifications have occurred in social attitudes, knowledge, legislation, and policies regarding child abuse and neglect. Then health-care professionals, police, the courts and child welfare professionals began better to understand and to respond to child abuse and neglect. With increased numbers of intakes, almost inevitably it became known that misdiagnoses of parental abuse or neglect had occurred. There were relatively few such cases perhaps but nonetheless, each unfounded allegation had profound adverse effects on parents and children. It is simply not acceptable to conclude, well, that can't be helped. It's the cost of being safe.

Quite possibly a case like the Bayne case will prompt yet another independent inquiry into Child Protection in British Columbia and yield recommendations which can protect children while also perfecting trustworthy risk assessments and which can develop a new paradigm of child protection and workers who bump up the compassion quotient and reduce the antagonism.

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