DEFENSIVE SOCIAL WORK

It is uncertain why there has been an increasing number of 'emergency removals' of children from parents over the past twenty years. One plausible answer is an increase in defensive social work. Child protection workers are generally drawn to their work for the best of reasons, to assist children and families. When severe injuries and even deaths occur to children, with whom CPS has had a history, social workers and the Ministry itself have received adverse publicity. When the media have sensationalized such stories, a defensive tsunami of removals has typically occurred. One might deem this erring on the side of safety, on the side of the best interests of the child, yet it has often been an unnecessary over-reach, an exaggerated attempt to do what is right. What must not be overlooked is the extent of harm caused by unnecessary removals. The stresses sustained by affected families can provoke psychological, financial and marital harm. The Child Welfare system becomes stressed because unnecessary removals divert resources, overcrowd the courts leading to lengthy delays of process and to terms that children must remain in foster care.

SEIZING CHILDREN

Each year in each of our provinces in Canada, police officers and child-welfare caseworkers remove children of all ages from the custody of their parents to protect them from alleged abuse or neglect. Some of these “emergency removals” are pre-authorized by judges in ex parte proceedings until the full story is known. In other cases the removals are achieved solely on the authority of the law enforcement or child welfare agency responding to a concerned call they have received. Depending on ages of children and circumstances, the children are predictably seized without warning from their homes or schools, subjected to intrusive interrogations, medical examinations and occasionally strip-searched. They are required to live in foster homes or group homes while the legal system grinds toward a settlement of their future.

HOW THE MINISTRY OF CHILDREN FUNCTIONS AND MALFUNCTIONS

Today’s entry is a continuation of yesterday’s guest posting by Ray Ferris, when he commented on Justice Paul Walker’s stunning judgement. He picks it up once more.

“Yesterday I wrote about the Walker judgement. Today I continue with some other lessons to be learned from this case. One reason why this case is important is because it is a good object lesson in how the children’s ministry functions and malfunctions. It can be viewed as a staff performance evaluation of the ministry, because it assesses competence at many levels. It does this either directly or by strong implication. If this were a staff performance evaluation it would compel remedial training at every level. These high profile cases are always governed from on high. Can you imagine that the local director could spend the millions that this case cost and other cases have cost without the top brass being involved? No you can’t and neither can I.

I want to give you a bit of history on how the top child welfare bureaucrats have functioned and how they function today. In the early days the legislature considered child welfare to be so important that they appointed an official who reported directly to the legislature and had statutory powers that were not controlled by the deputy minister or the minister. One of the first of these was the superintendent of child welfare, called Ruby McKay. She was beautiful, feisty and knowledgeable. She was a fearless fighter for children’s rights. She provided staff with leadership, inspiration and informative seminars. Staff was still under the normal command hierarchy, but they were accountable to the superintendent for child welfare matters. This situation continued until a very controlling deputy minister found a way of ousting the superintendent and appointing himself in that role as well as being deputy minister.

Then the law got changed. The legislature in its wisdom granted all power in child welfare matters to the regional directors. This was to protect them from undue political interference. However, the legislature in its innocence failed to consider that some of these directors might be incompetent clots and should be held accountable. These directors were, in theory, answerable to a head bureaucrat, but he usually rubber-stamped their decisions. When some nasty cases got bad publicity for the ministry, the top guy had to take the heat. Eventually he made a very dumb decision and embarrassed the government. Then they did away with the top child welfare official and returned all power to the regional directors. That way the top brass could not be embarrassed.

One thing you have to understand. The law protects regional directors from political interference and it also protects them from accountability. (Read more tomorrow)

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

THE MINISTRY OF CHILDREN NEEDS WHAT DR. ORIEUX CAN TEACH

The B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development could learn from my dentist. I am serious about this statement. In fact, I suggest that the Hon. Mary McNeill, Minister of MCFD, confer with Dr. Kevin Orieux regarding the difficult challenges she faces in fulfilling her portfolio. I am confident he could help the Ministry not only meet its mandate, but also lessen stress and pressure for Ministry staff while simultaneously enhancing the Ministry’s reputation in the eyes of BC’s citizens.

Thumb created by MarkosWeb.com

Why could a dentist do that? Because he’s not just a dentist. He has written two books on human dynamics and corporate psychology, so when he isn’t running the Cloverdale Dental Clinic, he is a practicing corporate consultant whose expertise helps those in leadership to fulfill their vision and purpose, by empowering their people. The following is a quote from the website of Aararat Consulting, which states Dr. Orieux’s goal to: “create a supportive environment where the rallying cry is ‘Synergy’ whereby everyone works with a unified focus to serve the holistic needs of the customer first, their
co-workers second, the company third, and themselves fourth.”

PEOPLE, POLITICS AND CHILD WELFARE IN B.C.

From the UBC Press, University of British Columbia comes this book now five years of age but topically relevant.

People, Politics, and Child Welfare in British Columbia

By Leslie Thomas Foster   Brian Wharf

The publisher’s paragraph states:

“People, Politics, and Child Welfare in British Columbia traces the evolution of policies and programs intended to protect children in BC from neglect and abuse. Analyzing this evolution reveals that child protection policy and practice has reflected the priorities of politicians and public servants in power. With few exceptions, efforts to establish effective programs have focused on structural arrangements, staffing responsibilities, and rules to regulate the practice of child welfare workers.

Contributors to this book conclude that these attempts have been unsuccessful thus far because they have failed to address the impact of poverty on clients. The need to respect the cultural traditions and values of First Nations clients has also been ignored. Effective services require recognizing and remedying poverty’s impact, establishing community control over services, and developing a radically different approach to the day-to-day practice of child welfare workers.
People, Politics, and Child Welfare in British Columbia provides a crucial assessment of the state of child welfare in the province. Practitioners, scholars, and students in social work, child and youth care, education, and other human-service professions will find this book particularly important.”

People, Politics, and Child Welfare in British Columbia Leslie Thomas Foster   Brian Wharf  
$85.00 Hardcover
Release Date: 5/11/2007
ISBN: 9780774813723    
ORDER ONLINE

$30.95 Paperback
Release Date: 1/1/2008
ISBN: 9780774813730    
ORDER ONLINE

304 Pages

THE SECRET SHAME - A BIT MORE / 537

Tim Korol, "The Secret Shame" - CBC photo

Yesterday I wrote about Tim Korol’s written report called “The Secret Shame.” That was a month of May story. Korol, back in December 2010 went public with his criticisms of the Social Services of Saskatchewan for which he served as an assistant deputy minister. He had 16 years experience as a Saskatoon policeman and 10 years experience with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission before being hired to provide advice to the province’s child welfare system with regard to family interventions and placement of children in foster homes.

What he experienced was resistance to his recommended and required changes because he was deemed an outsider. 

YES, CRITICS CALL FOR CHANGES / 530

Sympathizers with the Baynes dominate the readership of this blog site. I accept that. Other readers, occasional and curious take a peek. Some with vested interest in the Ministry of Children browse as well. Be assured that the parents and advocates of child protection reform who comment here are not a small troublesome faction of uninformed complainers.

Critics exist across Canada and in enlightened countries around the world. Critics are calling for greater accountability for the child protection segment of child welfare. That is what must be understood and processed by responsible parties.

Please hear me say that I believe child protection agencies do serve a vital function to safeguard children. Note that I am saying just as emphatically that child protection departments overstep their mandate.

The End of Compassion and the Triumph of Adversarialism / 510

The Federation Press

This is Good Friday, so named because of what transpired as Jesus, the Son of God expired on a Roman instrument for capital punishment. Western Christians term it "good" whereas Eastern Orthodox Christians refer to this sacred day as "Great and Holy Friday."

------------------------------------------------

 
A ministry culture that does not grasp the vital interplay between ethics and power, which mistakes policy and court orders for good practice, which misidentifies management techniques for wisdom, and which fails to keep in mind that the measure of a social service ministry is its compassion, condemns itself to social vilification and to judicial inquiry if not full redesign.

PARENTING BY THE STATE / Part 265 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Children's workers should be reined in.

One of these days I will write to tell the good stories of children's lives rescued and improved by the intervention of child welfare ministries. Their mandate is clear and essential, to protect defenseless children from abuse and neglect. I know that they exist. However, it is the miscues and bungles and stupidities that trouble child welfare's reputation in Canada and these are unnecessary and unacceptable. They catch my attention. Occasionally we talk about reforming child care and protection ministries. We certainly do that in British Columbia. http://leahgainorflagg.com">I refer you once again to reform advocate Leah Flagg. On her website you will see the appeal to sign a petition. Please do it. The effect of petitions is negligible I grant, but a list of supporters is better than silence.

Canada’s child-welfare agencies have among the broadest intervention powers in the Western world. Records show that Canadian agencies intervene annually in 200,000 Canadian children's lives. Caseworkers are equipped with immense powers and authority that can be easily misused unless there is vigilant restraint or monitoring. One can be a recent social work graduate and be authorized to enter someone's home without a warrant, apprehend a child without due process being completed and even able to appropriate police to enforce the procedure. A caseworker may require children to be clothed to a certain standard, fed, medicated and educated in a manner specified by the caseworker. Parents who do not comply may risk losing child custody, even visitation of their kids or have their children removed permanently. Families are being traumatized by caseworkers to a degree that it is nothing short of a distortion of the very system designed to prevent abuse. The Bayne family of two adults and three children have experienced this and countless other families as well to whose stories some comments on this blog have alluded. This blog and the comments written by others make a case for harnessing these agencies that are out of control.

Child Welfare agencies violate privacy and rights of individuals. Newborns have been taken from parents who are considered intellectually deficient; or from religious families whose faith in the Bible instructs them to corporal punishment; or homeschooling parents have been required to enroll their children in public school on the threat of removal. Provincial agencies have the power to intervene when children are considered “at risk” of abuse or neglect even if none of this has actually occurred. Then we hear of the cases, far too many, where the children that are removed experience treatment that is far worse than what was alleged to have happened in their homes.

When the swine flu was the big scare one mother kept her children home from school for one week after which someone lodged a complaint and a caseworker showed up to pull the children out of class to be questioned and then threatened the protesting mother that they might seize her school age children as well as two toddlers at home. Hundreds of incidents reported by parents testify to receiving threats that their children will be apprehended. Threat is one of the tools in the arsenal for silencing the objections.


There can be little or no public scrutiny of cases. Media is blocked from reporting details or questioning case workers. Always these limitations are said to be set to protect the children. We are learning that this government agency is capable of error in judgment yet the public cannot scrutinize cases because of these limitations. Judge Thomas Crabtree ruled against a ban on information proceeding from the court hearing concerning the Baynes or you would know almost nothing about them.

And if you care to read an alarming National Post article from 2009 which inspired today's post then go to this online article by Kevin Liblin, National Post June 12, 2009 entitled 'Children's Aid Society Workers Should Be Reined In, Critics say.
WE NEED A FRESH START

CHANGED MY MIND / Part 204 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

I was going to offer some practical ways to reform B.C.'s Child Welfare System. What an arrogant cockeyed notion that was. I don't know what I was thinking. Despite some of the good guys trying to do something good here and there, the system is so broken, practical ways are futile.

I painted this scene once in acrylic and it didn't work, so I conceived it again in oil, and well, it works.

For the past fifteen years people more informed than me have been offering systems corrections but when the concept itself is flawed – well give it up. Oh no, this outfit needs to be re-conceived. Did you hear me. This province needs an entirely new concept.

On this blog I have appreciated the challenge of delving into the B.C. MCFD policies, practices, structure and leadership yet it is not my first priority and besides it's disillusioning. What prompted me to become involved is well known by now. It was one family's struggle to be restored as a family. The more I learned about Paul and Zabeth Bayne's specific case, the more concerned I became that they were not the only B.C. residents whose lives have been consumed to regain status as a family not to mention to restore stability, happiness and peace.

I have openly acknowledged the benefits of social workers who deliver services that truly protect children and resource families. But the overriding concern that owns me is the potential for wrongful accusation of abuse and neglect on hotlines to the MCFD. Anyone can make a confidential if not anonymous phone call to report the suspicion of neglect or abuse. In fact it is the law in B.C. that a person must place such a phone call when there is a suspicion of either abuse or neglect. The gravity of the suspicion is not the caller's concern. That is the social worker's job. By law, social workers must then investigate the family that is reported.

While it may not seem likely that someone would do this, the potential exists for someone to fabricate a story that results in investigation and at the worst might result in charges being laid mistakenly. There is a greater likelihood that some neighbour will misread apparent indicators in an innocent family and begin an avalanche of trouble for a family. The Baynes were victimized by a phone call with what I assume was authentic concern but was soaked with inauthentic foundation. Regular family medical exams and reports validate that. Those children were never pale or thin because they were unfed, neglected or unloved. Those children were living with the challenges of all premature children and they were healthy as far as their doctors were concerned - doctors who were actually trained to make those judgments. Did the local MCFD SW care enough to get it straight, to actually record evidence. Evidence, not suspicion. Evidence, not hearsay. Without a balance between evidence and reported suspicion, written lines later on are incriminating.

A report of a suspicion or a concern is not the equivalent of probable cause but it is treated that way by social workers until they have proven to themselves that there is no factual basis for the suspicion. I would like to see a statical percentage for the number of children who are removed by MCFD workers without probable cause of abuse. I was astounded to read in one U.S. study that 60% of the removed children were taken without probable cause. Further, 50% of the call ins were found unsubstantiated. It appears to be a system that is without the due process of law in the sense that innocent families can feel as though they are being harassed. Is that the way it is in British Columbia?

Social workers usually want to enter the family home to observe and to interrogate caregivers/ parents and children if possible. To allow this to happen always exposes the family to risk. Parents need to become alert to ways to protect themselves from fishing expeditions by social workers. This is why I believe child welfare laws need to be reformed. Legislation, while protecting children should also protect families. Social workers should be compelled to abide by the same regulations that guide law enforcement officers. As long as social workers continue to operate with the level of power granted by the ACT then the privacy and parental rights of all BC'rs will be jeopardized.

So what would your new Concept include?
I'm going back to my easel.

Painting image "Pacific Coastal Lake" is copyright of Ron Unruh and not to be downloaded without permission

UNRESOLVED CRISIS / Part 147 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/ Part 147 /

MCFD IS IN UNRESOLVED CRISIS


In spite of inquiries and recommendations, changing governments, legislative reforms and in-house restructuring that MCFD calls transformation, this child welfare system in B.C. has failed generations of both children and parents. British Columbia’s child welfare system has been in crisis for decades and it still is. Mary Polak can only solve the predicament if she understands the history and acknowledges the existing problems.

The foundation of B.C.’s child protection system is articulated in The Child Family and Community Services Act approved in 1996 contains the values for child welfare as the Legislature expects it to be practiced. In 1996 this Act held enormous promise that the service provided would support families to care for their children in the family home using apprehension as a last resort and in the event that temporary placement was deemed necessary the goal was reunifying children with natural parents as quickly as possible. The CFCSA understood that removing a child from the parental home is a severe intervention. I join the crowd of serious reviewers who have concluded that the current child protection practices are violating the law established within the principles of the CFCSA. I'm not writing simply to rag on a Ministry or upon people but rather to present the case for changes, improvements.

When evaluating this Ministry, assessors are obliged to hear service providers, social workers, and lawyers representing parents in child protection cases. Wisdom dictates that another group needs to be heard and that is the parents whose children have been or are involved in the protection system. They have too often been ignored or silenced yet they have experiences, opinions and insights that can inform conscientious appraisers in ways that will make a difference. MCFD cannot in good faith say that it acts in the best interest of children until its management pays unbiased attention to parents.

The 'Child, Family and Community Services Act' Link

It concerns me that I have said nothing here that has not been said before by authorized probes and legal society reports. Ms. Polak must restore MCFD practice of the fundamental principles of the ACT.

Art: 'Broken Dreams' by Murray Unruh, acrylic and glass, 36X49 inches

For Love and For Justice / Part 133 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

B.C.’s Child Protection legislation states, “Children are entitled to be protected from abuse, neglect and harm or threat of harm.”

That is laudable. No argument.

There are inherent themes in our BC system of child protection.
It is acknowledged among us that natural (birth) parents of a child should have full rights over their child. ‘Full rights’ is termed custody or guardianship or parental rights. Custody changes only when by agreement or court order full rights are removed to someone else. Our government can and does intervene to apprehend a child from parents. In such a case all or most of the ‘full’ rights are removed from the natural parents. The Child Protection Ministry then has custody of the child pursuant to the statute which empowers it.

Within B.C.’s Child, Family and Community Service Act, is clearly stated that within our free society there are expectations of natural parents or other caregivers for that matter to provide for necessities of life to children.

Any time a child has been or is likely to be harmed or abused physically, sexually or emotionally or if the child is deprived of necessary health care or when a parent is unwilling or unable to care for the child, then a child is deemed to be in need of protection. And this list of justifications for intervention is unrestricted, that is, the Ministry is authorized to extend this list to accommodate situations where protection seems the safest course of action. For instance here is a quote from the ACT, “A director may, without a court order, remove a child if the director has reasonable grounds to believe that the child needs protection and that the child's health or safety is in immediate danger, or no other less disruptive measure that is available is adequate to protect the child.”

What makes many of us uncomfortable is that extravagant endowment of power over lives of children and parents when coupled with another feature of our child protection legislation. I refer to the mandate, the command that everyone must report any child needing protection. In fact, it is considered an offence not to report. At first glance such good Samaritanism seems appropriate if protection of children is important to us. A second glance through a lens of experience and the flaws are glaring. The B.C. Government helpfully suggests examples of such reporting scenarios which in my mind can easily be interpreted as meddlesome and intrusive and dangerous. The examples include (1) a school teacher noticing bruises on a child which the child and family cannot explain; (2) a person notices that a child is often ill or unclean or falls asleep.

A child can be apprehended on the basis of such a report. Then a court hearing called the Presentation Hearing is required speedily. Parents and families and friends are distressed with this step because the parent's essential and comprehensive challenge of the evidence is deferred to a later Protection Hearing. Parents are virtually helpless here. Their children’s lives are significantly interrupted by such an abridged process. How appalling must it be for a parent that a child can be forced to stay with strangers while suspicions, sometimes bogus, and anonymous allegations of abuse are investigated.

Do I think that apprehension decisions by the Ministry are made lightly? No, I don’t. I believe that as a society, as individuals, as policy makers and as social workers we concur that there must be exceedingly strong grounds for surrendering ‘full rights’ or removing ‘full rights’ of natural parents. I honestly believe that in most cases a judge does seek to make an unbiased and careful decision. Yet I also observe that we have certified a system that reduces the stringency of these ideals when it comes to apprehending children based upon suspicion. The worst scenario but not uncommon is that children engaged in a cycle of protection hearings may remain in the Director’s custody for a long time, in some cases this has been to the age of majority. Of course many parents become exhausted, disconnected from help, hopeless and impoverished by legal service bills. They give up. They become embittered. In desperation and anger they unite in online support and advocacy groups to raise awareness of abusive treatment. And an uninformed constituency and a self protective Ministry enterprise can write them all off as flakes.

I am more convinced each day that there is room for improvement if not comprehensive reform of our Child Protection training, policies, accountability structures, methodology and procedures.

For Love and For Justice / Part 120 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Here is a USA website, the content of which becomes a challenging read. It is entitled and subtitled in this way. ‘NATIONAL COALITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION REFORM, Working To Help America's Vulnerable Children By Changing Public Policy Concerning Child Abuse, Foster Care, And Family Preservation.'

NCCPR advocates for systemic reform. The membership of this coalition is comprised of professionals who have been involved in or with the child welfare system within the United States. This coalition provides them with a forum for affecting positive changes to policies that concern child abuse, foster care and family preservation. They are most concerned to make the system better for vulnerable children.

Besides the website rich with article and document resources, NCCPR also operates a blog called ‘NCCPR Child Welfare Blog (News and commentary from the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform concerning child abuse, child welfare, foster care, and family preservation.)'

In its rationale for child advocacy NCCPR states, “But we don’t see getting the word out or “raising awareness” as an end in itself. Rather, our goal is reducing the number of children needlessly torn from everyone loving and familiar. In addition to sparing children from the harm that comes from being consigned to America’s chaotic system of foster care, keeping those children out of the system also gives child welfare agencies more time to find children in real danger.”

The careful research and the boldly accurate writing has earned the contributors high respect among journalists and reform-minded child welfare professionals. Among the comments about this advocate group are the following.

“A voice of reason …[that] can find fault with an agency without sounding like [they’re] denouncing the Third Reich.” --Tom Lyons, Columnist, Sarasota (Florida) Herald-Tribune

“You are a tremendous force and asset to children across the country and I have nothing but the utmost respect for your work. I think you have made a tremendous difference in people's lives through your media advocacy work. … Now more than ever the services of NCCPR are needed to keep the heat on. You helped reporters like me stay focused, to not be swayed by the state bureaucratic and political machines and to remember what child welfare and child protection is really supposed to be about - helping children and preserving families - which, sadly often gets lost in the rhetoric of the day …” --Colin Poitras, former reporter, Hartford Courant

“A remarkable advocate for child welfare reform [with] an impact all over the country.” --Benjamin Wolf, Director, Children and Institutionalized Persons Project, American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois (counsel for plaintiffs, Illinois class-action child welfare suit)

“NCCPR has been a key support for the child welfare reforms in Maine. … The strong voice of NCCPR gives voice to ideas that challenge the status quo. The children of Maine need that voice. … The work that [NCCPR] has done with the media in Maine has helped them understand the complexity of the child welfare system and has helped them to understand that the reforms are in the best interest of children and the people of Maine.” --James Beougher, Director, Office of Child and Family Services, Maine Department of Health and Human Services