PARENTAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS (1st of 2 parts)

Parental Capacity assessments (1st of 2 parts)

Written by Ray Ferris. Ray Ferris is a retired child-protection worker and the author of The Art of Child Protection and occasional contributor to this GPS blog.

Parental capacity assessments, or PCAs are the sacred cows of the family courts. Neither the courts, nor the lawyers nor the social workers understand the parameters and limitations of these assessments. So for the benefit of any readers who may be at the mercy of the MCF I will give you the basics.

PCAs are one of a related group of family studies, which require the same skills to accomplish. These are adoption home studies, foster home studies, custody and access reports, general social assessments and risk assessments. All these studies should be carefully compiled and factual family histories done with the emphasis on normal social functioning. Families who have normal educational achievements, good work records and stable housing do not suddenly change their natures and haul off and injure kids or become negligent. One needs to know the risk factors such as parents, who have poor education, poor work records, poor financial histories, serial marital relationships, histories of alcohol and drug abuse, family violence and so on.

I am grateful to Zabeth Bayne for digging up good guidelines for me. These are not issued by the professions of psychology or social work. Neither the college of psychologists nor their association has guidelines for parental capacity assessments and the same goes for social work. The guidelines come from the Law Society in its online education program. They clearly state that psychologists are not qualified to do PCAs without further mentored training. Yet psychologists are hired all the time to do them and they follow no firm guidelines. Guidelines also only recommend psychometric testing in special cases. Also that any psychometric testing should not be done be the same person who does the parental capacity assessment.

Now we have the courts leaving it all to psychologists to determine the outcome of cases. Judges abandon their judicial responsibilities and leave it all on the shoulders of untrained psychologists. Usually the ministry pays for these assessments, and it is well known that so-called expert opinion favours the hand that pays. Repeat business may be in mind. (contact me if you have a question, rtferris@telus.net.)

DEREK LOVES HIS DAUGHTER OH SO WELL

Derek Hoare wondered out loud in his Facebook comment, how when a child’s relationship with parents has been nothing but positive, that social workers in the Ministry of Children and Family Development can possibly deduce that a parent’s love is not essential to the equation of peace in the life of a child disturbed by living away from home and among strangers no matter how efficient and caring they may be.

That curiosity was born as my previous two blog posts intimated, from the cancellation of a visitation opportunity between mother and daughter, between Aime and Ayn. Ayn is autistic and meltdowns are common with many people dealing with autism. Reason counsels one not to punish a child for a meltdown by cancelling a visit with her mother, or by dulling a child’s senses so she cannot manage a visit. Good social working skills equip one to instinctively know that a loving parent’s involvement will likely raise the spirit of a troubled child and stem the possibility of another collapse hours later.

A CANCELLED PARENTAL VISIT - ANY QUESTION?

I want you to be aware of the substance of a statement carried online on the open Facebook page dedicated to advocacy for Ayn’s return to her biological parental custody and care. Look up 'Help Bring little Autistic girl back to her Daddy.'

Derek Hoare is Ayn’s father and on September 5th he was commenting on a disagreeable situation. His ex-wife Amie Van Dyk with whom he has an amicable and respectful relationship and with whom he shares the deep desire for restoration of full parental rights with regard to their daughter Ayn, reported that she had been refused visitation time. (As you may know, Ayn is in the care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development since June 16, 2011, four days after she wandered from her back yard for a three-hour jaunt, and MCFD workers deemed that she required care and assessment and stronger control and that Derek as primary caregiver to three children, two of whom are autistic, required their assistance. Taking his child, immediately loading her with psychotropic drugs and locking his life into cycle of legal contest to retrieve her is that which Ministry personnel have accomplished.)

TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO / Part 417 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

There is a nuance to child protection and perhaps to a wider array of social services amongst us that disturbs me. I speak of the notion that MCFD must seek to make people better than they are by making them to fit standards established by others, namely MCFD or directors and social workers. Where once paternalism compelled or manipulated you to conform to something, a slight change has occurred, in that standards are being imposed upon people. Any parent whose child has been removed can tell us this. The threat is real.

This tendency among social work theorists, teachers, administrators and practitioners is born from wrong-headed thinking in behavioural sciences. Of course people everywhere act imperfectly now and again or frequently, even as a common pattern. Here then comes that paternalism about which I wrote yesterday, that has presumed that it must intervene in order to help people to be better. And if a child's lot in life can be better by removing them from an indigent parent, or the parent with few resources, so be it. Or if a parent can be better by the shock of having his or her child removed for six months, so be it. You don't think social work is done that way? Are you completely certain? How else can you explain the intrusiveness with which MCFD conducts its agenda. And what kind of trouble are we in or asking for if the very people who legislate, make policy, do the social work, practice law or make legal decisions are as imperfect as the people they are attempting to improve? That is a scenario fraught with risk of injustice. Well guess what? Injustice is here and has touched and is touching countless numbers of parents, children and family.

This Blog has been advocating the return of three children to their biological parents, Paul and Zabeth Bayne, for which a ruling is expected from Judge Crabtree within six days. We are that close. Stay posted.

RISK RATIONALITIES IN CHILD PROTECTION / Part 413 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The risk paradigm significantly influences contemporary social work. Social work and risk are increasingly linked as we have seen in a case like Paul and Zabeth Bayne and the removal of their three children in October of 2007. On the one hand, risk is a factor in contemporary social policy and practice because it must be when a report is received that a child is injured and there is suspicion of abuse. On the other hand, the 'risk' concept in social work is not uniform or uncontested. There are different rationalities for risk within social work which result in differing policy responses and practices. What then is at issue is that different rationalities of risk, regard or assess a 'subject/client' differently and therefore respond in differing ways to the subject. We have heard commenters say that one team of SWs treated the client combatively and newer SW assigned to the task was understanding.

In the case of the Baynes, we have had a Director who believes that at the time of the infant daughter's injuries and diagnosis in September 2007, Paul and Zabeth were a risk to their daughter. Moreover, throughout these past three years and still today as evidenced in the most recent affidavit, the Director believes the parents are a risk to this child. They do not deserve ever to have custody of their children again. That's the essence of the Continuing Care application upon which the Judge is deliberating at this moment. So convinced is the Director about the risk that Paul and Zabeth pose to children that he directed the apprehension of the baby girl's two brothers. Those boys aged two and three in autumn 2007 are now five and six years old and have also been in care rather than at home.

Upon what was this risk based? Well no substantiated evidence exists. No evidence pointed to a criminal act by one or both of the parents. The Director moved initially to the apprehension of the couple's children because of their youngest child's injuries. Even the medical diagnosis by a hospital pediatrician was not evidence. The doctor who was part of the child protection unit of the hospital concluded that the injuries were consistent with something called shaken baby syndrome. The diagnosis is not evidence. It is a theory. It assumes that the only explanation for that set of medical findings is willful harm to the child. Because of its name, 'shaken baby,' this theory assumes more than it should. Its description correctly reveals the serious and sometimes life threatening medical condition of the child, but titling the condition this way, passes judgement on caregivers because the name itself imputes liability without verifiable proof. This has got to stop. The diagnosis is even more contestable today because so many medical and bio-mechanical professionals have been doing research and writing opinion papers that offer grounds for other explanations for the injuries that were sustained by the Bayne child. Many of these were presented to the Director first but when the CCO application was made, these facts were presented in court by the Baynes' lawyer. The Director has retained his risk persuasion because he has never accepted the Bayne explanation for their youngest child's injuries. He has never believed that they are innocent as they have insisted without cowering and with so much at stake. In his mind, they were and are and always will be a risk. Redemption is not in this MCFD team's vocabulary. For that reason as Zabeth has come almost to term with her fourth pregnancy, MCFD has made numerous overtures to discuss with the Baynes the care of the yet to be born child. It is to this that Ray Ferris' letter to Mr. McNeill spoke. A personal letter that illustrated the uncaring stress that this conduct placed upon Zabeth whom the entire local MCFD team knows is vulnerable to seriously premature deliveries. It is time that risk assessments are conducted upon MCFD managers and SWs.

What disturbs me is that another Director with different risk rationalities might have already demonstrated willingness to accept the parents' strengths as well as exercised leniency and compassion to them for the sake of the family.

This Blog has been advocating the return of three children to their biological parents, Paul and Zabeth Bayne, for which a ruling is expected from Judge Crabtree within the next two weeks. Stay posted.

TALKING POINTS / Part 393 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

LOOK FORWARD TO SOME FAMILY PHOTOS TOMORROW!

I noted several talking points scheduled for a conference of social workers in the U.S. and these impressed me yet cause me to question whether the points are valid when applied to the Ministry of Children and Family Development of B.C.

1. Social Workers champion access, equality and fairness.
2. Social Workers improve the fabric of society by being advocates for people who need help addressing serious life challenges and exploring their options.
3. The Social Work profession was established more than 100 years ago to provide as many people as possible with the tools and support they need to overcome adversity (poverty, illness, addiction, abuse, discrimination, etc.) and reach their full potential.
4. The Social Work profession also works to change systems and customs that limit the ability of vulnerable individuals and groups to lead fulfilling and productive lives.
5. The nation’s Schools of Social Work promote social work education as a way for socially conscious people to make a significant difference in the world through service and leadership.
6. Every day, Social Workers witness the best and worst of human nature. A Social Worker’s success is often defined by the opportunities people enjoy thanks to their intervention.
7. Social Workers believe they have a responsibility to effect positive change for the future.

As a reader, why don't you choose a talking point and talk to it. Engage the rest of us. Tell the rest of us whether or not you agree with a point.