SHOULD YOU AGREE TO MEDIATION?

Your child may have been removed from you by the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) in British Columbia. You may sincerely believe that the removal was unjustified. You may feel that you have valid reasons to contest the actions of the Ministry. You are entitled to your day in court so to speak. It is not unusual for MCFD to seek to establish a Mediation agreement with you that disposes with court proceedings.

It is important that you think carefully before agreeing to this.

You can inform the Ministry of the following:

1. It is my right to have legal representation and advice in all dealings with the director.
2.I do no wish to commit to any sort of hearing until I have a chance to seek counsel.
3. I have been advised that mediation places a gag order on me. This means I will be unable to consult with some of my advisers and places me at great disadvantage.
4.The mediation cannot be arranged without my consent and I have been advised that attendance is not compulsory.
5. I have been advised that once a person enters mediation it can postpone protection hearings and this has sometimes caused very long delays.
6.When the director filed a complaint with me under the CF&CSA he clearly placed himself in an adversarial position and this is again apparent in the presentation report. He has great power over me under the Act and this would make any negotiations in good faith to be difficult.

I am informing you that I will not attend or participate in the mediation program.

RESOLVING SYSTEMIC AND NON-SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS IN CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES, Part 7

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

MEDIATION

courtesy www.pa-pa.ca

Mediation is another problem area that needs to be considered. Prior to the enactment of the CF&CSA, discussion, negotiation and mediation were considered to be social work skills. Supervisors would sometimes need to mediate disputes between social workers and clients and this was a much-needed supervisory skill. Mediation is usually most successful when there is no great power differential between the parties. It must also be completely voluntary on both sides.

The legislated mediation often fails for various reasons. First, there is a huge power imbalance between the parent and the social worker. The mediation often takes place when the children have already entered care, and so the parties are already in an adversarial situation. So much so, that some parents feel they need their lawyer present at mediation---even at $2,500 at a time.

MEDIATION - THE POISONED APPLE OF CHILD PROTECTION

The Poisoned Apple by DevianArt

Ray Ferris has written another timely piece today. Ray is an occasional contributor who provides sage counsel because of his years working with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. He meets many families who are struggling to recover their children from MCFD and is justifiably critical of the cruel bureaucratic delays. Today he writes about Mediation and expresses caution.

FOR PARENTS: Info & Suggestions - EVIDENCE, MEDIATION, ACCOUNTABILITY & INTERNAL REVIEWS - part

INFORMATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR PARENTS WHO ARE INVOLVED WITH CHILD PROTECTION AUTHORITIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Written by Ray Ferris

Part Four of Four
EVIDENCE, MEDIATION, ACCOUNTABILITY & INTERNAL REVIEWS
Part 4of4

Evidence. 

Evidence:Dilate Peoples by Ezekiel Antoniewicz

The only really valid evidence is factual. Expert opinion is allowed on validation of expertise, but even expert opinion must state the facts on which it is based. You will note under sections 66 and 68 that the hearing may be as informal as the judge may allow, so it is not necessary to be as slavish to process as in criminal court. Section 68 allows a certain amount of hearsay evidence that the court considers reliable. The writers of the act did not intend this section to make the act into a free for all, with no regard for the rules of evidence, but that is what happens. Social workers generally get little training in the rules of evidence. They cannot distinguish between fact, opinion, hearsay and rumour.

AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE – PART 2or5 / 564

Ray Ferris is my guest writer for the next five GPS posts. He retired after a career that included significant years with the MCFD and he has written a book entitled 'The Art of Child Protection.' In five parts here is the substance of a letter already sent to specific officers of the government and offered publicly now using the Bayne Case to expose flaws and to propose remedies in the child protection system.

Yesterdays' post was Part One and entitled "The Bayne Case is an Example of Flaws." It provides the facts of the case and a summary.

NUMEROUS OTHER CASES, ANALYSIS AND REMEDIATION – PART 2

CHILD PROTECTION MEDIATION / 527

Child protection cases, custody battles, and family law disputes are overcrowded with fury and anguish. In most cases when children are removed from parents, it is a crisis situation. In the earliest stages of the disagreement between PC workers and parents, the stress of the emergency is not lost on the children, from toddlers on up. Court processes seldom lessen the desperation. However, if mediation was practiced and if judges understood that this was an available alternative, court ordeals could be transformed. That's what proponents of mediation claim.

“BEST INTERESTS” - THE WAY IT WORKS AND COULD WORK

I confess that I still struggle to understand the concept. That is, I have struggled to comprehend the way CP personnel interpret the concept of the “Best Interests of the Child.” And I do give it an honest attempt.

Our child protection laws authorize child protection (CP) workers to investigate allegations of abuse or neglect. They can apprehend children from their families and they are enabled to place the seized children with foster families. The authority of CP workers is supported by our Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the criminal justice system and the court system. CP workers are immensely powerful.

The processes never fail to leave affected parents irate, estranged and often in despair.

MEDIATION RATHER THAN COURT / 511

Theoretically, whenever it is possible, the Ministry of Children and Family Development is expected to work with parents or caregiver/guardians rather than to take a case to court. Negotiation is the essential equipment by which MCFD is mandated to settle with parents a plan of care that is in the best interests of the children. Parents need to capitalize upon negotiation of an agreement or a ministry plan and themselves thereby avoid court. In fact, depending upon the circumstances of the case, when parents work with the Ministry, the Ministry has at times kept the child(ren) in the parent's home or at least in the home of other family members or close friends.

Part 137 / Application to Return the Boys / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

There is a concern that this court case is in a holding pattern. Prior court days were occupied with the MCFD presentation of their case. What remains is the Baynes' presentation of evidence, testimony and experts' reports and perhaps two weeks of court time are required. Court time is backlogged and possibly the Baynes might have to wait until June for resumption of their case. The Case Manager for the Provincial Court of British Columbia is presently seeking to set dates for two this continuance. One date is for a one day hearing for the Crown to hear the Bayne motion for the return to the two boys to their parents. The second date is a multi-day series for the remainder of the Bayne evidence and testimony presentation. Of course the Baynes are anxious to proceed.

The delay is generating additional stress on them as well as hardship for their children. In view of this, before the last session concluded, Paul and Zabeth and their counsel Doug Christie raised the matter of the boys' return with Judge Thomas Crabtree.

Honourable Judge Thomas J. Crabtree expressed willingness to hear Paul and Zabeth Bayne's application for the return of their two oldest children, their boys. Their application is based in part on the earlier broken mediation agreement - broken by the MCFD not the Baynes, and in part based on the lack of evidence for the removal and retention of the boys. In fact, MCFD's counsel Finn Jensen communicated to MCFD in 2009 that the boys should be returned due to this lack of evidence. MCFD chose to ignore that advice. Before the final day in court recently, Lawyer Douglas Christie reopened this application. Judge Crabtree is prepared to hear arguments from both sides and has instructed the court clerk to find a date for this particular hearing, and the remaining days needed for the primary hearing of the Continuing Custody matter. Everyone waits to hear the schedule.