IS EMERGENCY REMOVAL OF CHILDREN STANDARD PRACTICE?

reunion party photo

Over a six-year period, this Blog focused upon two cases in which so-called 'emergency removal' of children occurred. That is what propelled me to speak to the grievance, which I became aware was far more frequent than I wanted to believe or that is known by the public. These two consisted of first, a family of four children in which the surprise removal, or removal without notification occurred several times, and second, the case of a girl taken from her school. In the first case, the removal and custody battle lasted four years. In the latter case the girl spent three years in foster care, originating from an incident when she, an autistic child, wandered from her back yard and was missing for three hours.

from www.lukesarmy.com

In the first case, the initial concern was that the infant had been physically abused, shaken. Was seizure without notification necessary in either of these cases? Has it become standard practice? These children were eventually returned to parents. Yet here is a gripping observation. In both the instances, the children were found not to have been maltreated, neglected, abused. That is merely symptomatic of a system that uses emergency removal as the tool with which to deal with appropriate concerns that must be investigated.

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.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN by Ray Ferris

A children’s minister once told me that 30% of cases are over-investigated and 30% under-investigated. Looks like he was unintentionally saying that his staff got it wrong 60% of the time. To anyone who has had dealings with that ministry, this will come as no surprise. This blog has been primarily concerned with the cases of over-investigation. Those cases where a family has been persistently pursued and harassed when there was no good reason to do so. I want to write about cases on the other side of the coin. Those cases where the social workers turned a blind eye to neglect and abuse and left children to live in misery for years.

FAMILY COURT IS NOT SO CIVIL. / 599

"It is interesting to see what would have happened in the Bayne case, had their case been in criminal instead of family court. Of course it did not get into criminal court because of lack of evidence. When the police investigate a case, they look at the evidence and by that they mean the hard, provable factual evidence. If when the case is reviewed, an investigating constable reviews the case together with a superior. They may decide, and I believe this happened in the Bayne case, that there is insufficient evidence to take to the prosecutor."

That paragraph and the rest of today's post is written by Ray Ferris, an occasional GPS post writer. Ray speaks from 31 years service in child welfare and protection as a social worker and district supervisor and family court coordinator. Ray is the author of 'The Art of Child Protection'. 

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