ANONYMOUS MOTHER WRITES - HER GIRLS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM HER

This happens frequently, that a parent or caregiver writes a comment on one of my posts that is years old. They have responded to a topic that has popped up in their online search. The likelihood is usually remote that the writer will know where to return to see whether I or someone else has responded to them.

Yesterday, Anonymous wrote on a 2010 post. Here is the communication.
 AnonymousSeptember 12, 2017 at 4:08 AM

my 2 girls were apprehended based on the falsifying of drug test results by my social worker or someone else who is obviously paid by mcfd to do so. funny how I was not using and yet, every single result came back positive for fentanyl and norfentanyl...
I am hoping and praying for the truth to come out at trial in October...has anyone else had the same experience? I am literally dying more every day that my girls are not with me. and the truth is they were stolen from me for NO REASON. which makes this even harder. I am a good mother and everyone, even the sw says I am. so then I ask, why are you doing this to us when you KNOW I would NEVER abuse or neglect my girls? while you are wasting resources and foster care placement on my girls there are other kids out there in ACTUAL need who are suffering. go save them and leave us be. please! 

Reply

Replies

1. 
   RonSeptember 12, 2017 at 11:40 AM

   Well Anonymous Sept 12, 2017 --- I hope you have returned to read. Since you wrote your comment on a blog piece done in 2010, I think you may not find this again, so what I am going to do, is to put your comment on a post for today, Sept 13, 2017 to see if someone responds.

If you are reading this Anonymous letter and you would like to provide her/the writer with some counsel or share your own story, please do.

The original post to which she was responding was entitled,

IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE US / Part 372 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

and it began this way. "Child Protection workers and administrators would like us all to understand what an almost impossible task they have. Well, impossible in the sense of making all citizens happy with the results of their work. They will tell us that a perfect balance is unachievable between not protecting children from abusive parents and not making unfounded accusations against innocent parents. Stated differently and more positively, it is difficult both to protect children and to correctly assess risk by parents. To which I and others will quickly declare, “Then become more proficient at the latter in a hurry.”

I was writing then, in the middle of the horrific 4 year MCFD custody of the 4 children that belonged to Zabeth and Paul Bayne. They were finally returned in August 2011. Rejoice.

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 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.

THEY COULD HAVE BUILT HIM A HIGHER FENCE

Ray Ferris thinks I am more forgiving of social workers than he would be, so he wrote the following. 

I think if you want to assess the social workers properly then you need to go back to basic principles. This is what I always start off with and when you do that, the matters usually become quite clear. The basic mandate of child protection is to ensure that a child can be made safe at home, or in alternative care. This principle is firmly embodied in the CFCSA in which there are many admonitions to extend help to parents in making sure their children are protected.

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

OUR CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES MUST BE OVERHAULED

Random Child shot-photo John Millar

Most children who do come to the attention of child welfare or child protective services, do so because of one or more of the following issues categorized as child abuse, child sexual abuse, neglect, physical abuse, and psychological abuse. When Ayn Van Dyk was taken from her father Derek’s home since he was the custodial and primary caregiver/parent there was no suggestion of either sexual, physical or psychological abuse. Neglect includes failure to take adequate measures to safeguard a child from harm and/or gross negligence in providing for a child’s basic needs. Cause for removing Ayn had to fall in the area of neglect. The Ministry presented a list of reasons commensurate with a neglect allegation but unproven and it doesn’t have to be proven in our system. The parent does not get his day in court to disprove the allegation(s) unless he has resisted all mediation attempts by the Ministry in which case he is deemed uncooperative and that further damages his case. The mediation attempts, the meetings, the consultations, the timing for all of it is contingent upon the will and whims of the Ministry, so a child’s life and mind and family is interrupted for instance, for going on eight months for Ayn and Derek and he mom Amie and her two brothers.

CHILD WELFARE IN CANADA, IN ABBOTSFORD & THE CURRENT AYN VAN DYK CASE / 558

Child welfare in Canada contains both government and private services which are designed to protect children and to encourage family stability. The primary objective of the services provided is to safeguard children from both abuse and neglect. Services termed ‘child protection services’ investigate allegations of both abuse and neglect. They may also supervise foster care and adoption services. It was not unfair of me to place the protective concentration first, and now to tell you that in addition child welfare offers services that seek to stabilize and develop families. All of Canada’s provinces and territories have child welfare agencies accessible 24 hours daily and networked together these are called the Canadian Child Welfare System.

But I will tell you about a little girl in a moment or so who did not need Child Welfare messing with her life.

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