MCFD'S DELIBERATE EVASION OF APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE

MCFD'S DELIBERATE EVASION OF APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE

SS is the 3-year old Metis girl who lived with upstanding Metis foster parents in BC since she was 3 days old. These parents wanted to adopt her. MCFD had other plans and waited 3 years to enact them. In order to accomplish the removal of SS from her B.C. foster parents' home and send her to another foster home in Ontario, the Ministry of Children and Family Development purposely, one might say deliberately, took numerous questionable actions. You will read about them here. An unnamed friend has written the following points that I deem to be worth considering.

MCFD purposely disregarded every criterion for assessing a child’s best interests as specified in B.C. legislation and in the B.C. College of Social Workers Standards of Practice;

MCFD purposely disregarded the rights of the birth parents and their written preferences to which attention should be given as specified in B.C. legislation and in the B.C. College of Social Workers Standards of Practice;

MCFD purposely disregarded the written position of the B.C. Metis Federation that opposed the move;

MCFD purposely disregarded specialized opinions of medical and psychological professionals who advised against the move;

MCFD purposely disregarded the excellent record of care by the BC foster family, and the child’s superior development during her first three years with her foster family;

The MCFD fabricated charges against the foster parents, and created sham procedures by which to justify intolerable delays in finalizing a permanent placement for the child, by moving her from her psychological family in B.C. to another foster home with strangers in Ontario.

The MCFD procedure began as an adoption to the Ontario family until faced with the law forbidding this, and ultimately called placement with new foster parents;

MCFD in spite of the move being a fostering relationship have insisted that the child refer to the new foster parents as “mommy and daddy,” while insisting that her de facto psychological parents in B.C. be referred to only by their first names.

MCFD's confused bureaucratic manoeuvrings validated by B.C. Courts, gives the appearance that the Courts are complicit in this flawed and insulting treatment of a vulnerable child.

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. 

METIS FOSTER PARENTS LOSE APPEAL - CHILD TO BE SHIPPED TO ONTARIO

Foster dad with Metis girl, photo courtesy of foster mom 

Recent news of Metis toddler - A British Columbia foster family has lost its fight in the province's highest court to keep a Metis toddler they have raised since birth. You should read this week's Times Colonist report that reveals that the B.C. foster parents will not give up. Perhaps you will share Ray Ferris' dismay which he expresses in the piece that follows. He has sent this letter to the Times Colonist. Ray is an author and advocate.

"Your Times Colonist report reminds us that the social workers want to rip this child from the only home she has known and place her with strangers in Ontario, regardless of the consequences. Not only does this fly in the face of common sense, but it ignores all knowledge of early childhood development and good social work practice. Such action also flouts the imperatives in the CF&CSA defining the best interests of children."

    

"The Act lists the following guidelines and rules.

1.Preservation of kinship ties and attachment to extended family are urged.

2.Cultural identity of aboriginal children should be protected.

3.Decisions on young children to be timely.

4. Continuity of care is important.

5. Quality of relationship with caregiver.

6. Child’s cultural, racial and religious heritage to be protected.

7. Where the child is aboriginal placement must be with extended family or in cultural community, or with another aboriginal family."

"Clearly, all these conditions are satisfied with the present Metis foster parents, who also wish to adopt. Courts have defined Metis people as aboriginal. There is a section that says that placement in the same home as siblings should be considered. The Act also states that all the best interests must be considered in context and that judgement must be used. Note that no one right is declared as paramount. However, the Ministry director continues to insist that sibling placement must supersede all other clauses. Obviously the time has long gone when this would have had any benefit and it is perverse to cling to it. The law allows him to do so without challenge."

"Children need to be stabilized in the first year of life. Otherwise they are prone to developing a range of anxiety disorders, which can scar for life. Unfortunately, the scantily trained unregistered social workers of the children's ministry seem to be blissfully ignorant of such knowledge."

From Ray Ferris 105-3900 Shelbourne St. Victoria. Phone 250 477 5723

My Previous GPS blog posts associated with this case are found at these links:

GPS: Metis Child Is In a Mess: Feb 15, 2016 ... She was not permitted to go to a Métis cultural event being held in her honour. Why would the Métis Federation hold an event to honour her?

‪GPS: METIS GIRL'S GOOD NEWS - FOR NOW: Mar 7, 2016 ... The good news is coming but first read the reprise of this situation. If you have been following the long running story of the two-year old Metis ..

GPS: Times Colonist Story about Metis Toddler: Jan 30, 2016 ... FOLLOWUP opinion by Ray Ferris, my advocacy colleague, an experienced ...

GPS: Emergency News of Little Metis Girl: Feb 27, 2016 ... If you have to look back a few posts that pertain to the metis child being taken from her foster parents who ...

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION TO LET A TODDLER STAY WITH FAMILY

Child can’t be identified, but this is the little girl

Three posts entries ago I wrote an article entitled, 'METI FOSTER PARENTS CONTEST THE RELOCATION OF THEIR METIS FOSTER    CHILD'.

Now I want you to consider signing a petition to help these people. This little girl should not be placed in a non-aboriginal home with strangers. I want you to speak to the rights of this child to stay with the only family the child has known and where she is loved and at peace.

SIGN THIS PETITION in support of the toddler staying with family.

At the site, you will find the story that I touched upon in my piece above, but with personal and greater detail. Then the petition button is at the bottom of the prose. Please Sign.  

The Metis Foundation is in support of this child remaining with Metis foster parents in British Columbia who have cared for her since infancy. Her two siblings are with a non aboriginal family in Ontario. The  toddler doesn’t know her siblings. 

GOOD FOSTER PARENTS WANT THEIR FOSTER CHILDREN TO HAVE RIGHTS

"The bare facts of the case are quite enough to convince me that the director has shown very bad judgement in your case. It is the old story. The director is so scared that something unexpected might come up and bite him or her that there is an overreaction to every situation. "

RAY FERRIS' RESPONSE TO TURPEL-LAFOND's COLONIST ARTICLE

Photograph by: LYLE STAFFORD, Times Colonist

Today, the Times Colonist newspaper published Ray Ferris's most recent letter to the editor. He writes in reference to Sunday, February 24th's Colonist article entitled, "EVERY CHILD DESERVES A HOME," which was written by B.C.'s Representative of Children, Mary-Ellen Turpel-Lafond. Ray's letter was published with the subject heading, 'Provide foster parents with long-term guarantee'. Ray gave me permission to print it here in its entirety without alteration.

Foster Parent and a Foster Child / Part 358 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The next quotation of a child's comment comes from Tuesday's post, called 'Listen to the Children.'  “Can we stay now?” A small child's earnest request to remain with birth parents from whom he has been separated for half his life is without any agenda other than personal satisfaction of the heart.

It is not a child's comment on the care received within the foster home. It is not a child's comment about foster parents. It is not a child's statement that affirms or denies appreciation for what a foster parent has done for the child. It is simply a child's stated desire.

Foster parents motivated to care for children who are temporarily in need of a place to stay and in which to have their daily needs met, and to provide some sense of stability and affection are to be commended. I have said this before. Never having offered this service myself, I am unsure how you foster folk maintain the necessary objectivity to remain emotionally unattached to the child. Of course it helps if you already have children of your own. You do not require or want the additional permanent responsibility of someone else's child or children. This is a temporary service you do. Most foster parents understand perfectly, their roles and functions. They are foster, surrogate and alternate and are interim, impermanent and want it that way.

Yet, can a foster parent become attached emotionally to an infant or a small child in one's care? I can believe that this happens.

The foster parents of the Bayne children did not initiate this question or this blog post, nor did the birth parents. This is entirely detached from them. The ideas arose elsewhere in a rather general discussion rather than case specific. Could a foster parent become jealous of the affection of a child shown to the biological parents – an affection demonstrated by a simple statement such as, “Can we stay now?” Would that be an awkward and somewhat troublesome tug of war. Would that influence a foster parent's care program? Would it affect how a foster parent treated the child, spoke to the child? Would a foster parent attempt to win the child's affection somehow? Could a foster parent regard birth parents as rivals? How does a foster parent show care with affection and then successfully shut that down because their task is completed? I said in an earlier post that there are 16,000 children annually in BC who live for some time outside their parents' homes. The issues must therefore be handled many times by foster parents in this province.

I have to say, I never thought of these things, certainly not when I wrote the piece entitled “Listen to the Children.” It was merely a means to convey that a child has something to say about the way he wants his life to unfold. He should be heard.