AUTISM AND COMMUNICATING WITH COLORS

SETH CHWAST: COMMUNICATING WITH COLORS

Seth is one of the thousands of children, young adults and adults who live with autism that affects everything they are and do, but who have found art(s) to be their window or avenue to expression and creativity and joy.

As an artist myself, I cannot tell you how moved I am by the creativity resident in autistic children and adults and this is a sample. His name is Seth. I salute you, you special parents of autistic children who daily encourage your children to be all they can be.



For years Seth barely communicated to his mother, who is an unusually dedicated mom, yet she never gave up trying to find a therapy that would allow her son to have a life that gave him release and joy. when he was 20 years of age, she found that he connected to art. Suddenly life changed for them both.

Tomorrow I will tell you more about art and autism, and will share a website that may light your own fire for a local school of art for the autistic.

DEMOCRACY AND CHILD PROTECTION / Part 374 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

We can knock the involvement of the Ministry of Children in the lives of families and parents but we had better understand the philosophy that drives it.

We appreciate and applaud the democracy in which we live. We therefore need to understand it. As democracy pertains to the welfare of children, parents possess substantial rights as well as responsibilities with regard to the care of their children. Yet we have opted within our democratic society to provide a safeguard to children whose parents cannot or will not provide them adequate care. The government also owns responsibility to insure that children's needs are met.

Autonomy does characterize parental rights to decide for their children with regard to educational opportunities, religious heritage, discipline, cultural and recreational activities. Yet within this freedom lies an awareness that when concerns arise about physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect, then the government by way of a mandated child protection agency may become involved with the family. Sometimes this involvement is voluntary, which is to say that the agency upon request offers parents support and counsel to more effectively care for their children, and this may include monitoring and accountability. Other times the agency's involvement with a family is involuntary and even unwelcome. Of course a child protection agency must protect children from parents whose conduct constitutes physical abuse or neglect, sexual abuse, emotional abuse or neglect, or failure to provide adequate care. It is never justifiable to interfere with a family merely because the agency believes it can do a better job of care or provide more developmental opportunities. Justification of involvement occurs only when the level of care received by children has fallen below a standard which no child in the country should experience.

The social worker's struggle and the parent's conflict arises from the vagueness of definitions for child abuse and neglect because this requires assessment by a particular worker as to what that minimal standard for care should be and whether or not these parents have missed it.

This is certainly one of the dilemmas of our child protection system.

What is occurring presently with Paul and Zabeth Bayne and the repeated attempts by MCFD SWs to schedule a meeting to discuss the support and care of Paul and Zabeth Bayne's fourth and unborn child and Zabeth herself may be viewed technically as fulfilling the MCFD mandate. In light of the years of pain that MCFD involvement has delivered to the Baynes, these recent overtures might be interpreted as tantamount to harassment. Paul and Zabeth have always been trustworthy people. As young parents, they were responsibly caring for their three children before they were removed and under the gloomy forecast of the past three years have conducted themselves admirably well. While they wait now for news from Judge Crabtree as to whether they will be awarded custody of their three, they have characteristically prepared for their newborn. They are employed, have excellent medical support through family doctor and obstetrician, are registered at a hospital that is equipped with a special care nursery to handle deliveries 24 weeks and over, and they have the great benefit of incredible support from family and friends. Rather than playing by the book now, it would be advisable for MCFD to desist. It should be clear that confidence in MCFD motive and conduct is expended.

TV REALITY SHOW / Part 373 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

This would make a great reality TV show. I'm serious. Think about it.

It's a popular format. Numerous celebrities are having a second-wind career from reality shows filmed around the true life scenarios of their own lives, and when it involves whole families, they create appeal to a wider age spectrum of viewers.

The Gene Simmons Family Jewels show is a great example. It features former KISS rocker, Gene Simmons, and his girlfriend, actress Shannon Tweed, whom he proudly never married but has lived with since 1985 and is utterly devoted to her. Also integral to the show are their two children, Nicolas born in 1989, and Sophie in 1992. Occasionally Shannon's sister, Tracy Tweed also appears.

A host of others like the Ozzie Osborne Family Album and Hulk Hogan and his family and action film superstar Stephen Seagal now turned Lawman and Paris Hilton and M.C. Hammer all have tried or are trying their hands at this medium for making cash. And that is precisely my reason for mentioning this possibility in the context of British Columbia's Ministry of Children and specifically the child protection arm. MCFD and the public are constantly carping about the government budget cuts, the consequent staff shortages and large case loads. Critics of child removals and foster parenting are always putting forth arguments that allege monetary agendas. I just think we should meet these issues head on by considering a sure-fire solution for everyone.

I already write reams of posts that suggest that MCFD is a side show so why not capitalize upon this with a proposal to Canada's Global Reality Channel which specializes in such shows. It's a natural. A persuasive producer or two could persuade Mary Polak and Leslie du Toit and the cast of Regional Directors to agree to this enterprise. It holds the possibility of generating millions in revenue for the Ministry. The next BC Premier should be pleased because it reduces the headache of funding this behemoth of child care. Some of the begotten money could be dedicated to parents who have lost almost everything on legal fees. A couple of good writers could pull out true stories from all the regions, subscribe the participation of the principals, the clients, i.e. parents. A world class director could have his videographers and sound people in MCFD offices, family homes, at visitation sites, in the court rooms, wherever good authentic dialogue can be obtained to dramatize the contention between the Ministry of Children and broken-hearted parents and disillusioned children. Court observers and friends could be interviewed for their reactions and opinions. Can't you see it already! A Fantastic journalistic coup, a hit! And imagine being on site when a judge rules against parents, or when social workers high five each other in the hallway after a decision in their favour. The range of emotions make this a winner. Oh, and if good parents got their children back and a great musical score plays in the background – how great would that be! The spin off revenues from sales to the UK, USA, New Zealand and Australia would be astronomical.

The show could be called one of the following, Big Money, High Risk, Flight or Fight, MCFD, Saddest Loser, or House-Broken.

THE URGENCY OF THE RULING / Part 371 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

 Judge Thomas Crabtree is an active gentleman with more than enough responsibility. He has cases pending upon which he must adjudicate and he has his new duties as Chief Justice of British Columbia. Somewhere during his work days over these next several weeks he is allocating hours to read through the 237 pages of transcript generated over the twenty-two days in court when the case between the Director of Family and Child Services and Zabeth and Paul Bayne was heard. He has himself expressed his cognizance of the urgency of this outcome for all who are involved and that means he will deliver his ruling as soon as he can. He did provide an estimated window of eight to twelve weeks. That puts us into 2011.

Paul and Zabeth outside Chilliwack Courthouse

The Director's application for a Continuing Care Order for all three of the Bayne children is the causative legal action that finally brought this family to the Provincial Court. The application should be denied. The Baynes' three children were born October 18, 2004; June 12, 2005; and August 3, 2007 respectively and they have not lived with their parents for over three years because the Director removed them and kept them. This application should be denied because the quality of its supportive evidence is deficient. That deficiency is articulated for the Judge in the Baynes' Final Submission in refutation of the Finn Jensen closing summary. It should serve to underscore the impressions his Honour himself deduced as he listened in court hour after hour. Impressions that the Baynes are not baby abusers, that circumstantially incriminating information should no longer be used to punish these parents in the name of protecting the children, that the disparity between Ministry and Bayne resources to argue this case has not resulted in a conclusive victory for MCFD.

And yes, this case is crucial. The urgency of the ruling and the outcome to which Judge Crabtree alluded, for all who are involved, is not something we have thought much about. Its importance for Paul and Zabeth is patently obvious. Each day that they wake they face yet again the reality of their loss and the Director and his cast want to see this continue as a life sentence. The urgency of the outcome for the Ministry is not customarily considered but it should be. The Director can ill afford to lose another judgement because the publicity depreciates his reputation and this case has already garnered national and local televised news coverage and it will again. Reputation is invaluable and notoriety is to be shunned. What mystifies me is the modulation from sincere conscientious concern for the safety of children to the aggressive anti-Bayne/parent commitment that characterizes the evidence put forward during this hearing. Further, Minister of Children Mary Polak doesn't want to face media questions about the case handling of one of her regional offices. It is not an enviable aspect of her job. She was already stick handling her way at a news conference yesterday with regard to the young girl left with her dead mother's body at a Cultus Lake home. Her Ministry has not been forthcoming with information about that case, at least not nearly soon enough to satisfy Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the Children's and Youth Advocate who already went public with her disapproval and this week subpoena'd the information. Thanks to a reader today for supplying this Times Colonist link to Turpel-Lafond's statements.

So very much depends upon a Judge's discernment right now. 

An earlier blog post, Part 238 July 3, 2010 entitled 'The Importance of the Bayne Ruling' also spoke to the significance of the outcome but anticipated it much sooner than it will come. The delays of the court case have been lengthy. 

VIRTUAL VISITATION / Part 370 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

This is something which perhaps in a short time will become actual in divorce settlements, and I see no reason why parents embroiled with the Ministry of Children and Family Development should not already move forward to gain this privilege as well. I think that every parent whose child has been removed should consider making this request to the judge, not only for scheduled visitation but for scheduled 'virtual visitation'.

I am using the information provided in an article written by Misty Harris of Postmedia News November 16, 2010 at 9:15 AM and published in the Ottawa Citizen and Vancouver Sun and a host of other news sources.

Photograph by: File photo, Postmedia News

Today, parents whose children have been removed into care by the government are often awarded visitation privileges consisting of a number of hours per week. Perhaps in the near future, parents may request a judge's order to the Child Protective unit to include 'virtual visitation' each night before bedtime, so that mommy and or daddy may say goodnight to their child or children. It can be a virtual tuck them into bed at night. MCFD and CPS will hate and oppose this innovation since an aspect of the removal agenda must necessarily be to reduce the child's reliance upon and affection for the biological parent(s). Foster parents will find this troublesome to a degree. But it will come.

Ms. Harris' story calls this a “digital leap in parental rights.” She writes about it in the context of divorce settlements and video chatting may soon become the right and not merely a privilege for some Canadian parents. Six American states already include virtual visitation in their legislation and in Canada, courts are routinely ordering this plugged-in parenting option on a case-by-case basis across our country when a divorced parent lives some distance from the child's residence. It is anticipated that 'virtual visitation' will become enshrined in the language of divorce settlements so that broken families will be subject to court orders that facilitate parent-child Skype calls and instant messaging at scheduled times. It will become a fixture in custodial agreements.

As we hear so often, the compelling factor is the best interest of the child. The visual immediacy of a web-cam chat is very beneficial to a child. Clearly, if a parent has abused a child and a child is fearful, a judge is not going to order a regular web-cam visit. But where the contest is clearly between a protection agency and the parents and a child thrives by actual visits with parents, a virtual visit will be viewed as constructive for the relationship and the future of the family. Shouldn't that be what MCFD and any CPS agency is concerned to achieve?

FREEDOM TO SPEAK / Part 368 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Freedom of expression is a foundation of a functioning democracy. Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." Freedom of speech is a Canadian constitutional commitment that is predicated upon the belief that a free society is unable to function when there is coercive legal censorship motivated by those with power and an ideology that will not permit opposing viewpoints. Freedom of speech is maintained in Canada so that truth may be attained, people may be assured of self-fulfillment, people may participate as members of the society and as a means whereby both stability and change may be addressed.

Photo: (Soe Zeya Tun/Reuters)

The country of Myanmar is a member of the United Nations and is ruled by a military junta which has stifled free speech. Recently the international press has made much of the release on Saturday of 1991 Nobel Peace prize recipient pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. She is now 65 years of age. She has spent 15 of the past 21 years in detention without trial. Her latest period of house arrest spanned 7½ years. Such oppression by the military regime explains why governments of Australia, Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the United States still refer to the country as "Burma", refusing to recognize the validity of the name change imposed by the Junta.

Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex Features

Canada granted Aung San Suu Kyi honourary Canadian citizenship in 2007 and Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Saturday called her a Champion of Peace. That speaks to the peaceful means by which she has always advocated her push for democratic rule in Burma, much in the character of Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi. (Photo right: Aung San Suu Kyi's husband, the late Michael Aris and sons Alexander and Kim receiving Nobel Peace Prize on her behalf in 1991.) 

In Canada, there are limits to free speech and free press guarantees, as the Canadian Supreme Court is quite ready to point out. Yet those limits most certainly do not apply to speaking out about what is perceived to be injustice caused by a government agency and its employees. In British Columbia, numerous personal and media websites and blog sites have been chronicling stories about the way child welfare is conducted, particularly the administration of child protection. Some of those sites, like this one, are designed not merely to tell a story but to advocate for substantial and constructive changes in policy and practice that will ultimately result in benefits for Ministry of Children administrators and social workers as well as for children, parents and families. It is my position that the action steps for Ministry transformation in B.C. have not yet come close to the local administration of service delivery where all of the heart-breaking issues occur. Until Victoria begins to listen to the grassroots, to social workers and to parents, MCFD will fail to understand what must change.

A Basis for Discussion, Part 323, Sept 29 from this GPS site
CBC Story: Aung San Suu Kyi released
Video of Her Release: 
A Wonderful Collection of Personal Photos of her life with her late husband, British Academic Michael Aris 
Gallery of Her Life

9 DAYS WITH MOTHER'S CORPSE / Part 366 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

CBC's photo was public info but not her name

A neighbour found the 15 year old Down's Syndrome female surviving in the Cultus Lake mobile home of her mother who had died days before. That neighbour, Lawrence Jewett, Trailer Park Manager, was quoted by the Canadian Press writer as saying, “I'm just glad we found her when we did because it could have been one hell of a lot of worse.” He and another neighbour broke into the trailer to find the girl emaciated and filthy. This was back in September.

Well yes it could have been worse and then what might the Ministry of Children and Family Development said in defence of its conduct in this matter. As it is, what does the MCFD have to say? That's actually what Children's Advocate Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond wants to know. At the end of yesterday's work day she addressed the media with some consternation. In speaking to the CBC she said, "The ministry hadn't reported it to me....Any time a child has been left alone, with a parent who has died, for a number of days, I consider that to be an injury to the child, especially when the child has special needs." The injudicious action to which she made reference was the failure of MCFD to notify her of this incident before she learned it like everyone else through the media. That's right. The perception is that this is another instance of the Ministry failing to take Ms. Turpel-Lafond's role and authority seriously enough to inform her. Was that intentional? The public is left to surmise. Whatever MCFD was thinking, the decision comes down now with double the weight. Turpel-Lafond will conduct an independent investigation and we will hear about this once more.

The fifteen year old girl was dehydrated and hungry after being alone for nine days, nine days with her mother's body on the floor, and she was compelled to fend for herself. Yet she is entirely dependent upon adult care. The girl's brother learned that paramedics deduced that his sister would also have been dead within two days.

Oh but that is only the tip of the proverbial berg. We are told that multiple complaints about the child's care are on file with MCFD, Fraser Valley Region. Have you heard of their involvement in other cases? Yes, neighbours and family members, specifically the girl's older brother had expressed concerns about the mother's deteriorating state, her depression, her addictions to alcoholism and drugs and her inability to properly care for the girl. Ms. Turpel-Lafond mentioned this in her remarks yesterday. This maternal caregiver was unable to manage any longer. It might be argued that MCFD should have intervened here but the mother threatened a lawsuit for kidnapping. The CBC online story said that government welfare funding for the family care had been cut off, and asked how this woman was going to get by? We are never satisfied with what seems the predictable response of the Ministry. Children's Minister Mary Polak while acknowledging the tragic nature of this event, said that a full review has been done and she points out that we do not have all the facts so we should not jump to conclusions and she was prevented from speaking further to the public about this case because of privacy laws. And I say that those privacy restraints were not the reason why her Ministry failed to divulge this information to the Child Advocate. Apparently here again is a point of contention between these two departments.  No, no, that was merely an oversight by Ms. Polak's department, a lapse of judgement. Please! When will Victoria start leaning on the regional leadership? We would not tend to jump to conclusions if at least the Children's Advocate had been better informed. Because listen to this...

Ms. Turpel-Lafond said that MCFD supervisory staff had instructed social workers not to intervene in this case because they had enough cases already and enough children in expensive care. Oh really? Then how does one account for the aggressive behaviour of a region to remove three children from Paul and Zabeth Bayne, parents who are more than capable of caring effectively for their children. Behaviour that forced the parents into court after waiting for three years with those children in foster care? The erosion of public confidence in  the decision making of the area MCFD continues because of what appears a breakdown of timely information and accountability.

Kurt Petrovich CBC Video Story, interview with the girl's brother

CBC Video Story  interview of the Jewetts who made the discovery

GLORIOUS AND FREE/ Part 365 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Gov. Gen. David Johnston greets

Silver Cross Mother Mabel Girouard,

mother of Chief Warrant Officer 

Robert Girouard,

who was killed by a suicide bomb

in Afghanistan in 2006.

(Pawel Dwulit/Canadian Press)

I, like thousands across this glorious land and free, watched the CBC televised broadcast of ceremonies in Ottawa to commemorate our heroes, the fallen, who loved enough this country and all for which it stands, to fight in the face of danger and ultimately to surrender their lives. Multilingual dignitaries found the words with which to express what this sacrifice has meant to all of us who survive and cherish our lives in this country. CBC again admirably portrayed the event. Cameras permitted us repeatedly to look directly into the faces of soldiers and spectators. We looked into their eyes. The eyes of veterans who were far away and came back. Soldiers whose eyes reflect the loss of comrades. Children's tear-filled eyes as mothers caress small heads in comfort because fathers could not come home alive. Women's eyes, dry now after all these years without their sweethearts who were lost in a distant battle. And CBC captured the music of choirs and bagpipes and bugles against these vivid visuals and cannon volleys punctuated the solemnity with a reminder of the sound of war. 

We are so fortunate. I ask why in this chartered land of freedoms are the freedoms of some withheld? When you commit a violation of law, you justly forfeit certain freedoms. In the defense of people's freedoms, such as children's rights to health and safety, governments must at times confiscate the freedom of those who are under suspicion. That is as it should be and it is understood. But governments or ministries within governments contravene their mandates when suspicion is equated with evidence, when the suspicion is not investigated expeditiously, when rights are withheld indefinitely, and when legal authority is abused at the expense of Canada's citizens.

This is what is observed within the child protection corridors of BC's Ministry of Children and hundreds of B.C.'s law abiding and decent citizens will bear witness to this. While social workers within MCFD at every level may see things differently than me and may even feel an obligation to defend all MCFD action, there must be some SWs who concur that there are frequent trespasses of protocol and propriety. It is important that some of you speak up. The necessary improvements to interactions with family and delivery of services cannot happen without such admissions and admonitions from within.

SWs LEARNING FROM MISTAKES / Part 364 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Eileen Munro wrote a 2006 volume called "Effective Child Protection.”

One of her most poignant lines quoted from page 141 is, "The single most important factor in minimizing errors is to admit that you may be wrong." This is fundamental to turning MCFD around. I explore that premise today.

Among the hard realities of child protective work is that we do not live in a perfect world and there are no perfect parents. Good parents sometimes make mistakes. All parents may not meet the arbitrary standards that a social worker has developed as a model. These parents can nonetheless function capably as loving caregivers and have a right to do so. They might benefit from services offered with no attached strings and provisos. Another hard reality is that child protection workers do make mistakes, yet if there is a willingness the same workers can learn from those mistakes and improvements can be made to practice. Reluctance to learn informs superiors that these workers may not be made of the right stuff for this work.

We would begin to minimize the mistakes that are being made in child protection if we employed the right people. Hiring and retaining the right people for child protection in British Columbia is a difficult science. I don't believe that the Ministry of Children and Family Development has yet mastered it. It's easy to be critical and I must sound like that often. If employing the right people for child protection is a priority for us, then what must be understood at the top of the stuctural chart is that there has to be a balance between acquiring people with an academic ability to meet the job demands and the emotional intelligence to work with families, colleagues and other professionals.

Did you catch that? Emotional intelligence is not to be shunned but valued. Child protection is not merely an academic exercise whereby one follows the letter of the law. This is human welfare with which we are dealing. These parents are fellow humans of the same stuff as you are social workers, and these parents are not antagonists by nature. Their adversarial buttons have been pushed sometimes by the mistaken actions of social workers who have failed to, or been unable to use emotional intelligence.

“The skills and knowledge Eileen Munro thinks are needed to do the job properly include:

• using comprehensive and rational frameworks to make decisions
• using both current and historical information in relation to making judgements about families
• being prepared to change their beliefs about a family based on new information i.e. not clinging to old beliefs whilst ignoring new information
• workers testing their hypothesis about a particular judgement.
• having a critical approach to the work they are undertaking
• refraining from letting first impressions of the family shape case direction
  

These skills should be the common framework or language between the team leader and worker. A common ground that is used to measure and monitor what is happening in a family.”
“Mistakes will continue to be made in the helping professions. Child Protection is not immune from this. The challenge is to be proactive in developing systems that enable practitioner's to make the best decisions possible. Where mistakes are made, it is important that processes are put in place to salvage whatever lessons are possible.”

(This post inspired by the Child Protection and Youth Justice Professional Development Unit of State Government of Victoria, Australia, Department of Human Services) 

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.

LISTEN TO THE CHILDREN / Part 355 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Listen to the Children

I am advocating for three children taken as an infant, a toddler and a small boy, the eldest of whom is now six years of age and each of these children in the same family have been outside their parental home for exactly three years. Children have memories. Some memories are indelible. The two oldest children have recently had many memory buttons pushed as they have been permitted by a Judge's order, to have visitation with their parents in the parental home for six hours each Saturday. These children have been thrilled to see familiar items, furniture, toys. Despite the change of houses in the children's absence, there are sufficient reminders of a home life to which these children are responding with longing for permanency. The regional Ministry of Children department should be gratified by the high comfort level these children have with their birth parents. That will be the just response. Social Workers whose interest is acknowledged to be in the child's best interests should be pleased with this strong indication of compatibility between children and parents and the home environment. That will be the professional response.

We are well beyond this point already in this case, but the social workers and supervisors associated with the Bayne file should be trashing their previous risk assessment of Paul and Zabeth, and taking a fresh, transparent look at these parents and their children and their family and home. Among the thousands of cases MCFD handles each year in British Columbia, the Bayne family stands out as one with incredible promise for success and happiness. MCFD should be pleased to say to the Bayne family, “We wish you well.”

But “It's before the courts.” Yes, indeed it is. MCFD made sure of that, but only after almost three years had passed. It should not have come to this. The Baynes should not be on pins and needles now, waiting to learn whether or not these three children will have their hopes extinguished and their memories forever scarred. It should not have come to this, and the Baynes are not to blame, certainly not the children, and arguably not the parents. Paul and Zabeth will not harm their children. Paul and Zabeth did not harm their child in the past. That's what they said – three years ago in 2007, and in 2008 and 2009 and still in 2010. No evidence exists to contradict that testimony.

We are in an awkward time here, a disgusting period of waiting for a judicial response to legal presentations wherein these parents have been compelled to defend their entitlement as the parents of these three. No effort and no amount of words were spared to convince a judge that Paul and Zabeth had forfeited their rights to parent these children. It was ugly. It is ugly.

Listen to the children. “Can we stay now?”

MCFD-Phobic / Part 347 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

To presume is to take something for granted or as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary; to suppose something to be true without proof. When it comes to law, that definition applies in Canada. That is the inherent right, at least expectation of everyone who lives within our democratic British Columbian legal system. The citizen lives within a state of presumed innocence. It shouldn't be any other way.

A child afraid of MCFD

It is understandable that someone who is suspected of a violation of law should be temporarily restrained until a timely investigation establishes that either no evidence of infringement exists or, there is enough evidence to proceed to a trial using the pertinent facts. It is even appropriate in a serious criminal offense, to hold such a person in custody until trial when that person poses a risk of flight or further offenses.

When in a trial no evidence or insufficient evidence of a violation has been exposed either through discovery or confession by the defendant, the presumed innocence is confirmed by an acquittal of charges against the person. No penalties will be ruled against the person as a result of that trial.

Because Paul and Zabeth Bayne's ordeal has not been a criminal case the presumption of innocence does not seem to apply. Something is different. I am telling it like it is not how it should be. The Ministry of Children is authorized to act 'in the best interests' of the Bayne children as interpreted by MCFD social workers and director of that specific case, and that empowers MCFD to presume, if not guilt, then parental liability, certainly responsibility, even criminal probability. That's what MCFD can do. It can operate from presumption of guilt. And the inequitable entitlement which is afforded to MCFD consists in that the Baynes, rather than being protected within a canopy of presumed innocence, are made vulnerable as in a gladiatorial arena, because they, defenceless, must somehow validate their innocence. And their word, their protestations are not enough. Isn't it true that anyone, everyone says he or she is innocent, even vile murderers maintain, “I didn't do it.” Why should self-professed innocents be presumed innocent?

And then this imbalance. Long before the Baynes were required in a court of law to prove their innocence, MCFD could exact the penalty upon them of removing and holding on to their children and imposing restrictions upon the parents' access to the children and involvement in any decisions that pertain to their lives. And of course, MCFD has been doing this for three years, an anniversary marked in memory on October 22^nd. Yet because MCFD forced a trial by its application to retain the children forever, the Baynes were compelled at great personal cost and financial expense to demonstrate that they are innocent of harming their child or posing a physical risk to any of their children. Any reasonable person can appreciate the challenge resident in such a demand.

This case is only one illustration of the many that have been introduced over many months by your comments that support your collective premise that the Ministry of Children's Child Protection division should at all times be presumed a risk, and presumed to be guilty of error. What an alarming indictment of a government ministry and a fearful atmosphere under which our population must live. I know hundreds of people who are MCFD-phobic. Mr. Premier you must not permit this to continue or dismiss these concerns as the rants of a fringe minority.

DID YOU KNOW? / Part 345 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

New Leather – Did You Know

Hello, look at your car, now back to mine, now back at yours, now back at mine. Sadly you haven't got a car like mine, but if you were a lawyer representing the Ministry of Children and Family Development you could drive one like mine. Look at my car's emblem, now back up, where are you? You're in a showroom with a person who already owns one of the cars on display. What's in your hand, back at that show car. You need a key that fits the ignition of that new car with which you have fallen in love. Look again, the key is in your hand. Anything is possible when you graduate from law school and become employed by MCFD. I'm in the driver's seat. [Smell like new leather. Be an MCFD lawyer]

Old Spice – The Man your man could smell like

“Hello, ladies, look at your man, now back to me, now back at your man, now back to me. Sadly, he isn’t me, but if he stopped using ladies scented body wash and switched to Old Spice, he could smell like he’s me. Look down, back up, where are you? You’re on a boat with the man your man could smell like. What’s in your hand, back at me. I have it, it’s an oyster with two tickets to that thing you love. Look again, the tickets are now diamonds. Anything is possible when your man smells like Old Spice and not a lady. I’m on a horse.” [Smell like a man, man. Old Spice]
 

Sesame Street - Smell like a Monster

"Hello, everybody, now look at yourself, now back to me, now back at yourself, now back to me. Sadly, you are not a Monster, but if you listen to Grover you will learn all about the word: “On”. Just as this monster does. Look down, back up. Where am I, ah, “I am on a boat”. What is in your hand? Back at me. I have it, it is a clam with two tickets to that thing you love. (clam bites nose) “On my nose”. Anything is possible when you smell like a Monster and you know the word “On”. “I am on a horse”.  "Moo."  "Cow." Smell like a monster On Sesame Street

Hello, parents, look at your life, now look at mine, now back at yours, now back at mine. Sadly, you aren't me, but if you work in social services, and specialize in child protection, you can act like me. Look down, back up, where are you? You're in court with the person you could be like. What's in your hand, back at me. I have the CFCSA in my hand to justify everything that I do. Look again, the folder is in your hand and you now have all the power. Anything is possible when you work for MCFD. I'm writing an affidavit. [Enjoy authority. Be a Protection SW]

I couldn't help myself.

WHAT'S NEXT? / Part 344 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Other than getting it off your chests, what is the value of ranting against the MCFD?

I am asking the question because like this blog, there are numerous websites and blog sites which rail against the procedures, tactics and injustices of MCFD with regard to parents, families and children. Today I am asking myself what possible good is accomplished by airing these concerns?

I know that it is important for disenfranchised parents to have a voice somewhere, but most who take the opportunity on this blog, do so anonymously anyway.

And what is the readership of a blog like this? Well I can tell you that the majority of people scouring the internet for links related to child protection are parents whose families have been torpedoed by a government agency. So it is limited and biased readership. The majority of the comments attached to my daily posts are from people sympathetic to my advocacy of the Baynes' attempt to regain their three children.

The sites that are over the top in their expression of abhorrence and contempt for MCFD will seldom get more than a rare and random glance from any government or ministry official. My guess is that such presentations will not be taken seriously.

My blog does receive regular drop bys from people in positions of authority and influence and involvement in MCFD. Some workers related to the Bayne case check out the latest submission when it pertains to the case. But I am not kidding myself, writing here will not change anything inherent to the system and the issues themselves.

What I am noticing however, is that because I have sought to provide an honest, balanced, reasonable, informed, well written and consistent commentary, (that's enough adjectives) it garners more than fleeting interest.

But where does the concern and the interest go from here?

Some have suggested a conference. Some speak about a gathering of some kind. I am wondering what you have in mind. What is the next step that can effectively communicate to our Ministry of Children, the concerns that our citizenship have with the way child protection is conducted in our province? What organization is required?

We shouldn't even have to be doing this at the grassroots. A responsible Ministry leadership should recognize that the most constructive approach to transformation that adequately affects children and parents and families is concentrated communication with those very people affected by the present MCFD operation. Our Ministry should do far more listening. Our MCFD Minister and Deputy Minister should be conducting and paying for large scale Conferences across the province to embrace the input of damaged parents and children regardless of the vitriol that may be expressed. Establish the agenda to gain the information needed to change the existing system in ways that not only protect truly vulnerable children but spread hope heavily for all the parents who can overcome behavioural and personal issues in order to parent effectively.

Demonstrations, petitions and picketing do nothing in my estimation other than marginalize hurt people even further and classify them as a fringe element. But what is the action needed to communicate intelligently with those who do make policy and practice decisions? Come on, help us out here.

BEFORE FIVE / Part 343 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

It was all in The Province. What an informative and provocative service has been provided by the journalistic decision to develop and publish a 12-part series on what parents and government can do to give B.C. children a better start in life. On Monday the eighth part occupied several pages with an assortment of articles. You can also read these online now. There are so many quotable quotes. I will place some of them here and seek to convey other lessons.

Dr. Clyde Hertzman, photo by Arlen Redekop, The Province

For instance, Sam Cooper did a piece called 'In Life, It's All About the First Five Years.' Well didn't we all know that? Perhaps not so much. When the impact of that fact is supported by the research of two hundred inter-disciplinary researchers who form a team supervised by Dr. Clyde Hertzman, the director of the Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP) at the University of B.C., this critical period of each life seriously impacts what we are discussing every day on this blog and every day that the Ministry of Children conducts its business. Dr. Hertzman told Cooper, "Early life experiences can actually change the way in which our genes express themselves...So it's no longer a question of nature or nurture -- it's a question of how nurture changes nature."

Hertzman says that “the biological 'code' of success in life is built by all the sounds, sights, touches, thoughts and emotional interactions that children experience in their first few years.” Then consider the Bayne children as a mere sample of the impact that removal and fostering has had upon malleable fresh lives. Paul and Zabeth have tried as well as they can to deliver large doses of acceptance and affection in the time allotted to them over three years when these children had to process on their own the wrenching away from their home, the adjustment to new people, caregivers, the stress of sorting through loyalties and following instructions from a host of people and hearing their parents remonstrated by visitation supervisors if incomprehensible lines were crossed. Now they have been with foster families longer than they were with their biological family and how confusing might that be? Even social workers have prompted the parents to be sensitive in how they speak to their boys who may have possible lingering attachment to foster parents.

Cooper understood the HELP team to be saying that “If children don't get what they need during the crucial developmental "windows" before the age of five, they likely will never bounce back.”  In an interview in his office at UBC, Hertzman is asked: Can it really be true that a life story is basically written before the age of five? Hertzman answered that “when things work out to begin with, it's way easier for kids to grow and develop. It's like leaky condos -- if it isn't built right from the beginning, it will be way harder and expensive to fix later on."

The baby girl that the Baynes or one of the Baynes have been accused of hurting to the point of endangering the life, is three years of age. What has she learned about life, about adults, about relationships, about trusting, about communication, about love? Hertzman in this article establishes that “From birth to the age of three in particular -- the 'densest time of development' -- the primitive areas of the brain that allow us to interact well with others are growing and coming together, much like the architectural foundation of a building..... children are reading the facial expressions of adults and forming visual connections with the deep emotional centres of the brain...parents basically have an 18-month window to gaze at, hold and cuddle children to help them build the right structures.”

This sampling does not do credit to the article and to Dr. Hertzman's views so I encourage you to read the article here. He was asked what parents can do and he cited these for the newspaper.

“FIVE THINGS PARENTS CAN DO
1. Early on in life, spend as much time as possible holding, touching, talking to your child.
2. Get in the habit of reading fun bedtime stories to your child. Make it a loving, emotional experience, and ask questions, too.
3. Provide as much time as possible for your child to play with other children and on their own.
4. If you need to use childcare, insist on high-quality care and environments.
5. Develop a support network with neighbours and friends to help solve your family's problems with work-life time challenges."

CANADIAN FAMILY ORGANIZATIONS / Part 339 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

If you are sympathetic to the grievous loss by parents of not only their children but of their inherent rights to parent their biological children, then you should browse the Parental Rights website that I noted yesterday. 
If you have compassion for children who have been removed from their parents when a conscientious effort could have been conducted to resolve the issues that interrupted the best interests of the child and the family, then spend some time digesting the information offered on this website.

I am not discounting sincere and passionate efforts being made provincially to gather a momentum of concern in order to gain a hearing with legislators. For instance, Protecting Canadian Children. 

Protecting Canadian Children is Ontario based and Ontario focused and will soon be hosting a CONFERENCE on Family Protection on Friday, November 5th, 2010 at the Renaissance Banquet Centre at 2289 Barton Street East, Hamilton, Ontario from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The cost is $40.00 (registration and lunch). If you live in Ontario you should attend. See Alfradine Linda Plourde's Facebook pages and PCC pages.

Another BC Society with a web presence is PAPA People Assisting Parents Association.  The mission of PAPA is simply stated as “We strive to protect the best interests of children by preserving their families and restoring healthy parenting ability. We safeguard the rights and dignity of parents in child protection activities.” The website is busy and bold, but when you take the time, you will find vast amounts of gathered data and stories. PAPA was formed by a group of citizens concerned about the "child protection" activities conducted by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. To that end its beliefs valiantly include these points. 1) Parents have the God-given right and responsibility to care for and bring up their children in a manner which is culturally and socially acceptable to their own values within the boundary of Canadian laws. 2) Family is the best environment to nourish children. Preservation of family is important to maintain a healthy social structure vital to child upbringing, national security and continuation of civilization. 3) Custodial right of one's natural offsprings is a fundamental human right and should be enshrined constitutionally. 4) Government must treat parents and children with respect and dignity in carrying out its child protection mandate. 5) State intervention in family affairs should be avoided except in extreme circumstances. Should interventions become necessary, they must be least intrusive and serve the best interests of both children and their parents.

In B.C. there is also a Chinese based organization with a broader social interest than just child welfare and it is called Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association, also with a website which allows the browser upon arrival to ask for English or Chinese language access. http://www.canadianalliance.org/ The website serves as a quarterly web-zine.

It's an intimidating acronym and one which I will never remember CASJFVA but it represents these objectives: 1) The advocating, fostering and safe-guarding of social rights and justice. 2) The advocating, fostering and protection of traditional family values. 3) The safe-guarding of parental rights with respect to education and up-bringing of their children. 4) The advocating, fostering and safe-guarding of constitutional, common law and civic rights and responsibilities of individuals both as citizens and as parents. 5) The advocating, fostering and establishment of traditional schools, social and educational institutions for the preservation of traditional values. 6) The advocating, fostering and safe-guarding of citizen’s right and entitlement to clean, just and upright government. CASJFVA has a decidedly Christian values foundation.

Perhaps you can inform us of other helpful organizations or websites.

Advocating for the return of Paul's and Zabeth's three children, in MCFD care since October 2007.

A GRIEF OBSERVED / Part 332 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

A Grandmother and a grandfather sat helplessly. Yesterday I described the small court room in which Mr. Jensen delivered the final hours of his Summation. The judge's bench and the clerk's desk and the table and chairs of the legal staff and defendants comprised most of the space. Of the nine remaining chairs, two were occupied by these grandparents. Zabeth's parents they are. I paid attention to them because I too am a grandparent, proud of it, loving the relationships with little people that it provides to me. I am special because those grandchildren are extraordinary. I, however, have unfettered access to my grandchildren. These two people do not.

So I watched them as the Jensen words cut them deeply. They sat motionless, staring ahead, no longer shocked by what they were hearing because they have grown accustomed to their savage sound. They were grieving I thought, hardly bearing the insinuations against their daughter or her husband, perhaps imagining the worst possible outcome of this hearing.

Jensen pointedly directed Judge Crabtree that (1) his honour must find that there is need for protection, and that (2) he must therefore order the Continuing Care of the children. With such intense statement of objective, I found it interesting that Jensen then mentioned that contrary to what some people were saying, there are more than two possible rulings from which Judge Crabtree may select his verdict. In fact he said there is a host of alternative rulings beside either a CCO or giving the children back to the parents. Among these he suggested that Judge Crabtree might issue a Temporary Care Order, or a Period of Supervision, or place them in temporary care while the parents take further steps to satisfy the Ministry that they are indeed risk-free as it were. These were proffered to the Judge it appeared, as considerations should the judge come to the conclusion that the risk is still there but that the CCO is too final for this particular case. Who knows the precise motivation other than Jensen? But he did underscore that there should be no misunderstanding, that the Director's desired and appropriate ruling is a CCO. Yet Jensen implied that these other options might be considered. The Judge asked for some guidance on a Last Chance Order and that definition was discussed for a few moments.

Now all of this was at the conclusion of the first couple of hours during which Jensen reestablished Dr. Jane Gardner's paediatric ophthalmology qualifications and revisited her testimony concerning how she arrived at her diagnosis of the injuries, her opinion about extent of force needed to produce these injuries, her reactions to the hypotheses of the Baynes' experts. Then he focused upon Dr. Alexander's credentials and testimony, the foundation for his opinions being clinical records rather than information from Dr. Colbourne Jensen said. Alexander had disagreed with any theories that a short fall and particular that of a toddler upon the reclining infant could produce the extent of injuries Baby B sustained. Those injuries included subdural hemorrhages on both sides of the brain, retinal bleeding, a skull fracture and a chip off the long bone of the left femur. His testimony was that this was only due to a blunt force impact together with acceleration and deceleration. He even said that this force was the equivalent of that experienced in a car crash or a large fall from a great height, or child abuse. Well that's mighty frightening if it is to be believed. But that is precisely the obstacle. It does not have to be believed because it is still one man's theory against how many was it? Ten experts. Whose expertise Jensen discounted for numerous reasons stated in court. And that is his job. And the Judge's responsibility will be to conclude what and who is believable. What can be viewed as definitive?

Oh, I know, I know, Jensen would quickly respond to that. I will share again more of the Jensen summation tomorrow although I feel I have given him far too much air time or blog space. The transcript of these several days of Jensen are being prepared now.  

A BASIS FOR DISCUSSION / Part 323 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

If we are to dialogue with people who can actually change the way things are, how can we best express what needs to be communicated? Here are some thoughts by which I meaningfully engage the subject of government involvement in child protection and specifically the removal of children from parents.

- As I think specifically of the British Columbia's Ministry of Children, there is a level of intervention that I recognize as being necessary to keep children safe in evidential cases of abuse or neglect by a parent or caregiver.
- I recognize the commitment and care provided by some MCFD social workers with high professional standards who ensure the protection of children in cases of abuse and neglect and those who work with families.
- Contrary to some who write comments here, given the two statements above, I cannot oppose all child removal situations by the MCFD.
- While the purpose of the Child and Family Community Services Act is to assist and support families and to remove children only as a last resort, I observe that child removals happen more frequently than that purpose would imply.
- MCFD child protection social workers do not consistently possess adequate investigative skills and some social workers exhibit callous attitudes toward parents with whom they deal. When parents feel that they are treated as criminals, which many do, that approach by a service provider is counter productive.
- MCFD regional office personnel and social workers at times display a judgmental and punitive attitude toward parents and caregivers. Unbalanced or biased investigations and risk assessments have distorted what is real and true. MCFD then persuades the court that intervention is essential for the child's immediate and ongoing safety. .
- The general population of B.C. expect that MCFD and the Family Court is acting in the best interests of the children but for many children removed and in care, their experience is unmistakeably damaging because they have been removed from their parents for months and sometimes for years. When removed from a loving and safe home, children suffer intense trauma and long term misery by being separated from their parents and siblings.

WHAT would you say?

By the way: Thursday Sept 30th, Finn Jensen resumes his case summation at 10AM to continue Ministry care of the Baynes' three children.

HOW HAPPY CAN YOU BE? / Part 322 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

How happy have you been?

During the past few years how much happiness have you known?

Can you recall moments of great happiness in recent months?

I have been happy. I am happy. I could be unhappy. I have been very unhappy at certain times in my life. My happiness varies of course, affected by me, mood, health and circumstances. But I am generally happy. I am fortunate. Yet what if the measure of my happiness had less to do with me and more to do with the actions of others that unavoidably crushed my happiness quotient. That wouldn't be fair.

A famous phrase of  The United States Declaration of Independence is "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and these three qualities are considered “unalienable rights” or sovereign rights of humanity.

An early champion of this philosophical view of human life on earth was John Locke in whose Essay Concerning Human Understanding written in 1693 wrote in Book 2, Chapter 21, Section 51 that "the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness."

So important is happiness that it has been made a science. During the past twenty years an upsurge of scientific studies have sought to discover the causes of “subjective well being” that is, discovering what makes happy people happy. There is some consensus about key factors that produce happiness and these will not surprise you. Communicating, Caring, Exercise, Getting in the Flow, Spiritual Engagement, Cultivating Strengths and Virtues, Positive Thinking: Optimism, Savoring, and Gratitude.

Lost in this new science or at least not obvious in this list, is domestic contentment. Examining these 7 factors however, informs me that Communicating hinges upon relationships. People are happiest with friends and family and least happy if they are alone. People Caring for others consistently enjoy good mental health, are  less depressed and have greater satisfaction. Regular exercise has a large effect on mood and mental well-being and mood. Getting in the Flow is involvement, becoming engrossed in creative and meaningful activity which produces self esteem and engagement and happiness. There is a close link between spiritual and religious practice and happiness. Significant benefit is derived from optimism because negative influences are viewed as temporary, limited and manageable. Gratitude interestingly causes people to interpret events uniquely and view life positively, hopefully.

Okay enough of the philosophy.

I have not spoken directly with Paul and Zabeth Bayne about the subject of happiness so what I say here is pure conjecture on my part based upon what I see of them, hear from them and read in their communications. Their happiness is inconsistent. It is certainly never at the level where they feel exhilarated in the morning and entirely fulfilled at night. They have moments of happiness and those are the 540 minutes each week that they spend with their three children. Imagine measuring that time in minutes for three years. That happiness is abruptly concluded at each of three weekly visits when the sad-faced wee ones are escorted by their contracted supervising custodian to the van that takes them back to the foster home. The rest of the time Paul and Zabeth are preoccupied by concerning thoughts that a government ministry can want to keep their children and will build a case against them to make this happen rather than build a means by which the children will be returned. And they are obsessed with thoughts of their children's happiness or lack of happiness because this same government ministry has misrepresented the concept of  'the best interests of the children,' and in practice is not doing the right things which would make for happiness for everyone.

PARENT COACHING / Part 319 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Here is an fascinating service.
It is Parent Coaching. Have you heard of anything like it in Canada?

This is an Australian service. It provides psychologist services to people who are involved with community Services or the Children's Court, the equivalent to our Ministry of Children and the accompanying provincial court. Typical clients are parents whose children have been removed from their care. This particular coaching office provides individual counselling to parents who are involved with the child protection services of their region. It is counselling that seeks to help parents create positive changes in their lives so they can continue parenting their children. Further, while the cost is at least $100 per 60 min. session, these can be covered by the Medicare program as part of the Mental Health Care Plan, when there has been a referral to Parent Coaching by a medical doctor. Medicare covers these costs.

What do you think about this? You have picked up that in order to engage in these services, a parent must divulge to a personal physician a convincing case of mental or emotional incapacity, must accept that this will be part of the medical record, must concede significant need for change, must want to develop parenting and coping skills.

Among the benefits that proponents of Parent Coaching espouse, is the provision to such parents of the ability to deal with feelings of stress, depression and anxiety; to focus on what's important – namely, the children; to understand the child protection and court systems and how to work with them; to learn what mistakes other parents make when working with child protection workers; to develop skills to better work with one's caseworker to achieve goals; to learn new parenting skills to better manage children's behaviour.

There is even a Parent-coaching Institute offering a one-year, graduate-level, distance-learning Parent Coach Certification training program in collaboration with Seattle Pacific University's Department of Education.

1. Terry Carson works out of Toronto with her The Parenting Coach.
She can be reached at terrytheparentingcoach@theparentingcoach.ca

2. Parent Coaching is also offered by Linda Aber out of her Tactics Resource Services in Montreal

3. Proactive Parent Coaching comes from Nova Scotia offered by Greg Bland as a means to assist parents in capturing the heart of their children. Reach him at greg@proactiveparenting.ca

4. Dulcie Gretton, is a certified Parent Coach with a website called Renewed Parent. Her services are $100 per session and she recommends 8-12 sessions but there is no location information. A phone number is on the website.

5. Christine Kutzner Counselling offers family and parent-coaching in Vancouver
You can reach her at... Email: Christine@ckcounsellingservices.com
Phone: 604-339-5774
Office: #210-1940 Lonsdale Ave., North Vancouver