RESOLVING SYSTEMIC AND NON-SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS IN CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES, Part 8

By Ray Ferris (This piece is one of a series Ray will write here.)

LAWYERS

Since the enactment of the Child, Family and Community Services Act the use of lawyers has dramatically increased. Now that proper training in the act has become uncommon, the social workers rely on legal advice for every function.

Interviews with clients have become so adversarial that they are often conducted with counsel present. This intimidates clients to the point where they feel they too must have an advocate present. It should be obvious that the legal profession and the courts have a very old tradition of being adversarial. It is also well known that the more adversarial the culture, the more financial benefit goes to lawyers, so they have little incentive to negotiate.

RESOLVING SYSTEMIC AND NON-SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS IN CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES, Part 6

By Ray Ferris, (This piece is one of a series Ray will write here.)

Lawyers and the adversarial culture of family court.
Another thing that has developed since the enactment of the CF&CSA is that the use of lawyers has increased tremendously. Now that proper training in the act has become uncommon, the social workers rely on legal advice for every function. Interviews with clients have become so adversarial that they are often conducted with counsel present. This intimidates clients to the point where they feel they too must have an advocate present. It should be obvious that the legal profession and the courts have a very old tradition of being adversarial. It is also well known that the more adversarial the culture, the more financial benefit goes to lawyers, so they have little incentive to negotiate. The adversarial culture is so deeply ingrained into the legal profession and the judiciary that they seem unable to think in a different way. They just cannot help it. This culture now permeates the family court and processes have become as formal and adversarial as criminal court. The informality allowed in the act is soon forgotten.

It has often been said that courts do not dispense justice, but they dispense law. Family courts do not protect child welfare, they dispense process. This process often becomes so lengthy that child welfare gets drowned in process. No wonder many people are now wondering whether the family court is no longer suitable for deciding protection cases. Ways and means should be sought to have cases heard before some sort of panel of experts and only sent to court if unavoidable.

Ferris retired after a career that included significant years with the MCFD. He has written a book entitled 'The Art of Child Protection.' You can order Mr. Ferris' book entitled 'the Art of Child Protection' by contacting the author directly at rtferris@telus.net.

CRIMINALS AND LAWBREAKERS

Today's post has been contributed by Ray Ferris who provides occasional and always informed and helpful counsel to parents who seek him out for advice to deal with the personal crises they are encountering when dealing with the social service agency known as the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Today he deals with the Justice/Law and this is worth the time to read it.

What is the difference between a criminal and a lawbreaker? Is it just a term, or is there a real difference? Well it seems to me that lawbreaker is a generic term, which applies to anyone who breaks any law, but a criminal must specifically break the criminal law. We know what happens to criminals, because they go to prison, or get fined, or put on probation. Some countries put them to death.

What about all the other laws which are not criminal. Civil law and administrative law? What happens to breakers of these laws and who are typical lawbreakers? Well we know all about speeding tickets and parking fines. We know all about income tax penalties and divorce and custody orders. There can be unpleasant consequences if you fail to pay maintenance or fail to return a child on a court ordered access visit.

Do we find lawbreakers in family court in child protection cases?

INFORMED AND CONFOUNDED / Part 284 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

My primary purpose for the blog when I began was to expose what I believed was an injustice upon a family with whom I was acquainted, the Baynes.

The writing process required research which has been educational for me. The information has also been disturbing to me.

The unspeakable terror of being accused of harming one's own child when in fact that was untrue, and the confiscation not only of the one child to whom this harm was allegedly done, but all three of one's children was so repugnant that I could not tolerate the thought that we have a Ministry that would condone this and then keep the children for over two years without sorting it out. It is almost three years now.

What I have learned is that conjoined to the removal of children as the first line of solution to suspected abuse or neglect, is a legal establishment comprised of clever, cold-eyed lawyers who defend the actions of Ministry personnel using the files and reports compiled by social workers some of whom have abandoned integrity.

What is more troubling to me is that my acquaintances are not a unique case but merely a sample of scores more families whose lives were interrupted or forever altered in British Columbia. Then I discovered that in every province, the governments' initiatives to protect children has resulted in similar miscarriages of rights and freedoms and reputations and privacies. Further, a virtual worldwide pandemic of absurdities within the child welfare programs of nations is destroying families.

I am confounded that our own Minister of Children and Deputy Minister of Children and Ombudsman and ranking Ministry officers, when reviewing the same data to which I have access, are not themselves questioning and speaking to how Child Welfare agencies can fulfill their mandate effectively without leaving these lengthy trails of tragedy and heartache.

DOES MCFD SPY ON PEOPLE? / Part 269 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

This anonymous comment was written this morning in response to a challenge issued to another commenter named CW with regard to a comment under the Part 211 entry of June 7, 2010 1:58 PM. It is assumed that CW is a social worker presently employed somewhere in the MCFD system. It revisits the subject of MCFD Launched Surveillance of Parents.

Anonymous wrote this:
“CW, I have given you almost two months to seek confirmation from your superior whether MCFD mounts surveillance on parents under scrutiny. You refused and alleged that you can only speak for the Fraser Valley Region (see your posting on June 16, 2010 in Part 222), hence setting up a stage for your sweet double talk once I prove my case.

I have accepted your unilaterally imposed rules of engagement like not relying on PAPA’s surveillance page and information or video from outside British Columbia. Since you refused to provide the confirmation I seek, I will not provide the evidence to prove my case. You are quite right that I have evidence, but I am not itchy. Rest assured that evidence against such intrusive and other hideous activities will be made public in a platform that your Ministry will find much harder to deal with at a time of my choice.

You tactfully raised the following issues that render MCFD mounted surveillance on oppressed parents seemingly impossible:
1. after hours support services may be the province-wide Children's Helpline (your comment sent on June 7, 2010 1:58 PM in June 6, 2010 Part 211);
2. there is no budget in conducting surveillance (same as above);
3. Mr. Ray Ferris stated clearly that MCFD does not use "spies" (your comment sent on June 7, 2010 10:52 PM in June 6, 2010 Part 211)

For the benefit of scrutinized families and the advance of knowledge on MCFD activities, I affirm that MCFD does mount surveillance. They do not put up surveillance in every case and only do this if there is incriminating evidence to gain. For instance, surveillance is often mounted when there is a supervision order prohibiting unauthorized contact of one parent with children who must leave his/her family home to exchange for return of children under the custody of the other parent. If there is no surveillance mounted as CW alleged, then MCFD is not doing its to protect children by not policing the supervision order. Be at ease, damage control. In fact, they often send their undercover agents to stalk parents and stake out residence in the aforesaid scenario.

Although I am not going to provide tangible evidence, I will respond to the above allegations that CW had shrewdly alleged to mislead people:
1. After hours support service constituted 45.7% of total child removal costs, which amounts to $6,917,931 in 2007/08 (data source: Freedom of Information application). Is it likely that a 24-hour phone line cost almost $7 millions per year to run? No. After hour “service” mainly comprises of MCFD agents who remove children and respond to “child protection” calls after hours. I have seen them on fishing expedition outside family homes hunting for reasons to re-remove children even after midnight.
2. It is true that there is no account in MCFD’s budget to support surveillance activity. If you read their budget carefully, there is no account for their legal expenses as well. MCFD lawyers do not provide pro bono services. Likewise, no surveillance budget does not mean that they don’t mount surveillance. MCFD’s legal expenses are in the Attorney General’s budget. As for surveillance, I would direct readers to read the Consolidated Revenue Fund Extracts (Unaudited).
Starting from page 141 of this 402-page document, there are many individuals and number companies received over $25,000 from MCFD for unspecified reasons. Like foster parents, some of these surveillance agents may not be government employees and are third parties hired by CP SW. One of the duties of SW is to authorize expenditures for support services (read MCFD SW job description page 1 of job store # 174 posted in June 2010). Be mindful that payment recipients receiving less than $25,000 in a fiscal year are not listed in this document. God knows which and how many of these recipients provide surveillance service.
3. I do not recognize that Mr. Ray Ferris, an ex-service provider, is authoritative. Nor do I believe that his solutions will solve problems created by state-sponsored child removal. Although I appreciate his effort to unveil the corruption by writing extensively on “child protection” issues, he has told me nothing new so far. Mr. Ferris can speak critically now because he had retired. If he did this while he was still employed, he would have been fired. CW is banking on the trust that many bloggers have on Mr. Ferris. His disbelief on the surveillance issue does not mean that it does not exist.

In today’s blog,* Mr. Ferris suggested that abuse will continue if social work professors, B.C. Association of Social Workers and MLA don’t speak up. MCFD’s SW need not to register with the British Columbia College of Social Workers (Mr. Ferris erred on the name of the College). What does this has to do with the College? I guarantee that this sort of abuse will continue if government still retains the power to remove children from parents. (*A Ferris post appeared briefly today. Recovery later).

These allegations even fool oppressed parents who have not experienced MCFD mounted surveillance. This ministry can compel teens to do penile sex tests and kept it well hidden for decades. What else they are not capable of doing?

PS: Regarding your remark “teachers are not MCFD watchdogs”. Indeed, every person in the province is obliged by law to be MCFD watchdog and the entire province is their hunting ground. Listing teachers only as MCFD watchdog understates the witch hunt network."