MCFD OPINION ABOUT ABORIGINAL ADOPTION? MERE WORDS, WRITTEN BUT IGNORED

I am going to tell you how MCFD disregards its own policies to the injury of a three-year-old child. I will inform you that MCFD has successfully exempted itself from following the law.

Right here on the B.C. government's own website is the page that speaks about adoption of aboriginal children. The lead paragraph states, "Aboriginal children in care need homes with Aboriginal families whenever possible – to help them stay connected with their extended family and community."

That social interest feature is precisely what took place three years ago when LM and RB were asked to take SS into their home when she was a newly born three day old baby girl of Métis biological parentage. LM is Métis and she and RB, her husband, are members of the BC Métis Federation. 

Then the B.C. Website speaks about an Aboriginal Custom Adoption with these value features, such as custom adoption "makes it possible for Aboriginal families, organizations and communities to use a culturally appropriate way of planning for Aboriginal children." Not only that, but the government explanation also states such a Custom Adoption "respects the customs and traditions of the First Nations and/or Aboriginal community of the child," and "ensures Aboriginal children maintain their cultural, linguistic and spiritual identity." Of course, and that too is precisely what LM and RB did when SS's biological parents asked them to be the child's adoptive parents (Custom adoption). Done.

To persons who are now deemed adoptive parents by virtue of the Custom Aboriginal Adoption provision, the government advises them to get a lawyer to help them with an application to have their Custom adoption recognized by the Supreme Court. Taking that advice LM and RB made application for a formally recognized adoption. All is well one would think. The government should be pleased with the progress of this case that is clearly in the best interest of the child.  Not so.  Because the government had a different plan for SS.

MCFD social workers, several months into the fostering program expressed a plan to adopt the child out of province to a non-Métis, non-aboriginal couple in Ontario. Well, guess what! That is not supposed to happen. But it did. It happened to SS's two older sisters years earlier in Ontario.  The Ontario Children's Aid Society placed the two Métis girls in a non- Métis home. The birth parents eventually moved to B.C. where SS was born three years ago.  The Children's Aid in Ontario and the MCFD of BC struck an arrangement, colluded, to have the little girl known as SS join the two sisters in Ontario.  It is unlawful to send an aboriginal child outside the province of B.C. Has anyone spoken publicly about that? Have any news sources picked up on that? Well certainly the BC Métis Federation spoke against this injustice. Yet what about the other Métis organizations and agencies including the Métis Commission for Children and Families of BC, the Island Métis Children and Family Services Society and the Métis Nation British Columbia? What did each of these three do? They supported the MCFD plan. Why? There is a story there. Can you smell it? I will get to that in a day or two. And why don't judges flag injustice that is as flagrant as this?

BY ALL MEANS look up the little girl's Facebook page ‘Bring Home Baby S’, and the two websites that tell her story, bringsshome.ca or bringsshome.com. 

ALEX WAS 15 YRS OLD & WEIGHED 37 LBS WHEN HE DIED

ALEX RADITA

News agencies have covered the case of Alex Radita, a teen whose death has led to a murder charge. Alex was 15 years of age and weighed 37 lbs when he died. His parents, Emil, and Rodica are charged with first-degree murder. Their faith life factors into the neglect. It's an awful story. 

You can read about it at the following sites but be warned, this story contains content some readers may find disturbing. Discretion is strongly advised.

CBC Calgary

Calgary Herald News

Global News Radita Trial

In view of the case history, Ray Ferris, my friend, an occasional commentator here, veteran MCFD employee, advisor to and advocate for parents has written this letter to the Editor of the Times Colonist.

EMIL & RODICA

"Mr. and Mrs. Radita are not the only ones who should be in the dock over the death of their son. From early court records, it was obvious that the mother was incapable of rational thought.  She insisted her son was not ill and all they needed to do was to pray. She tried to encourage the boy to resist the doctors when they gave him insulin shots. Because they only spoke Rumanian to each other she was difficult to supervise. She repeatedly tried to sabotage his treatment. In the face of such invincible ignorance the only thing that could guarantee the boy’s survival was permanent removal from the parents. The social workers should have known that but they tap danced around the evidence and there were repeated dangerous episodes until the inevitable happened.

37 LBS @ 15TH B-DAY PARTY, TRIES TO SMILE

    This is typical of how the child protection workers fail in their mandate. When they encounter a case with compelling evidence, they cannot make up their minds until it is too late. The next day they are removing children and keeping them in care for years based only on hearsay, presumption, and unreliable so-called expert witnesses. I would also put the director in the dock, because it is the directors who authorize all the bad decisions."

A CHILD'S RIGHTS, GOOD JUDGEMENT & POOR TIMING

An opinion by Ray Ferris, my advocacy colleague, an experienced former Ministry of Children social worker and author of 'The Art of Child Protection."  Contact the author to order a copy of his book, rtferris@telus.net.

CTV Image / the 2 yr old Metis girl known only as  S.S.

The story of the foster parents trying to adopt a child is a classic example of conflict between the different rights of children. Children’s rights are set out in the CFCSA. Children’s best interests are paramount and include the right to continuity of care. The right to kinship contact, kinship placement timely decision making and cultural preservation.

         No individual right is paramount, but some rights become more important as time passes and conflicts can occur. It is then that a balance between rights must be sought requiring good judgement. Unfortunately, good judgement seems to be a scarce commodity in this ministry. They will often treat one right as paramount inappropriately. They use right to privacy to shroud everything in secrecy, sometimes withholding information from people with a need and right to know. Often they form a plan, but take so long to implement it that it becomes redundant, but they do not reassess things.

B.C. GOVERNMENT NEEDS A CONSCIENCE.

The B.C. government is appealing Judge Walker's recent 2015 ruling that vindicated a good mother and publicly pilloried the Ministry of Children for a botched child protection case. This unfortunate mother and her children must feel like they are living a frightening fiction. Dorothy met three principle characters in the Wizard of Oz, each missing something essential. The Scarecrow required and wished for brains. The Tin Woodman desired a heart. The cowardly Lion needed courage. The B.C. Liberal Government and its Ministry of Children and Family has misplaced all three, brains, heart and courage. In this instance, the Government also reveals an absent conscience.

Put this family's experience into a justice framework. Then stand back and view what the B.C. Ministry of Children has done to Mom's family and what the B.C. Government will now compound.

In 2009 Mom and Dad were divorcing. Mom had concerns that Dad was sexually abusing their children. She reported this both to the Ministry and to Police. MCFD did not investigate this. Dad, educated and smooth talker, manipulated Ministry social workers to believe that Mom as mentally unstable. Ministry informed police of the same so police did not suitably investigate. Ministry wrongly apprehended Mom's children. Ministry provided false or misleading information to the judge to support the apprehension. Ministry sided with Dad in a custody battle. Ministry disregarded a court order and allowed Dad unsupervised access to his children. He then sexually abused his youngest child. The judge awarded the children to Mom. She sued the government. The Judge found the Ministry liable for negligence, misfeasance and breach of fiduciary duty.

Hon. Stephanie Cadieux, Photo: Doug Craig

These details are all contained within this justice framework. What would have turned this into a masterpiece, would have been heartfelt contrition by the government and by the Minister and Ministry personnel. But that is the stuff of fairy tales. So, the Premier and the Minister of Children promised a Review. Really? Bob Plecas, who is commissioned to conduct the review has no authority to place anyone under oath and he cannot lay blame. The review becomes meaningless now that the Government and the Ministry have decided to appeal Judge Walker's ruling. While this is before the court, no one is obliged to even talk to Plecas. More importantly, the hell that the government put Mom and the kids through for six years will drag on for several more years instead of settling with her. Oh, Stephanie Cadieux says this is not about the family. It's about getting clarity. How much clearer can it be? This is about not taking ownership of mistakes, and about dedicating oneself to fixing what is systemically faulty, and about sweeping this tasteless mess under the proverbial rug. These are elected officers of the Government showing up for work without a mind, heart, courage and most critically without a conscience.

DEFENSIVE SOCIAL WORK

It is uncertain why there has been an increasing number of 'emergency removals' of children from parents over the past twenty years. One plausible answer is an increase in defensive social work. Child protection workers are generally drawn to their work for the best of reasons, to assist children and families. When severe injuries and even deaths occur to children, with whom CPS has had a history, social workers and the Ministry itself have received adverse publicity. When the media have sensationalized such stories, a defensive tsunami of removals has typically occurred. One might deem this erring on the side of safety, on the side of the best interests of the child, yet it has often been an unnecessary over-reach, an exaggerated attempt to do what is right. What must not be overlooked is the extent of harm caused by unnecessary removals. The stresses sustained by affected families can provoke psychological, financial and marital harm. The Child Welfare system becomes stressed because unnecessary removals divert resources, overcrowd the courts leading to lengthy delays of process and to terms that children must remain in foster care.

IT NEVER STOPS

It never stops.

Cases of parents neglecting or abusing their children; cases of parents being accused of neglecting or abusing their children; cases of children being removed justifiably from misbehaving parents; cases of children being removed unnecessarily from responsible parents; cases of children not being held long enough to protect them and cases of children being held excessively long from their parents.

IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT AYN WILL COME HOME

Today, word has been received by Amie Van Dyk, that she should expect to have her daughter Ayn released from Ministry care into the care of the child's mother. That's Amie. This news was conveyed by the social worker assigned with Ayn's case. The social worker reportedly made the announcement with permission from the supervisor. Understandably Amie is in shock, processing her exhilaration which seems surreal at times, difficult to believe and too good to be true. It will have been three years that this child has been withheld from the custody of either parent.

ASSESSING SOCIAL WORKERS by Ray Ferris

BASIC PRINCIPLES BY WHICH TO ASSESS SOCIAL WORKERS by Ray Ferris

Ray Ferris is a frequent commentator and occasional post writer here. Ray is the author of 'The Art of Child Protection'.

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 CF&CSA and there are many admonitions to extend help to parents in making sure their children are protected. If we look at what happened to Derek Hoare in the light of these principles, we can quickly see that the director was in dire dereliction of his duty.

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.

OF COURSE, CRITICS CALL FOR CHANGES

For years sympathizers with the Bayne family dominated the readership of this blog site. Then I took a break but began again to write about Ayn Van Dyk, autistic 12 year old removed from her family to undergo assessment and investigate her family life. This was occasioned by her afternoon skip over the family fence and a wander down the street. She could not be found for three hours. Other readers, occasional and curious take a peek. Some with vested interest in the Ministry of Children browse as well. Be assured that the parents and advocates of child protection reform who comment here are not a small troublesome faction of uninformed complainers.

Critics exist across Canada and in enlightened countries around the world. Critics are calling for greater accountability for the child protection segment of child welfare. That is what must be understood and processed by responsible parties.

Please hear me say that I believe child protection agencies do serve a vital function to safeguard children. Note that I am saying just as emphatically that child protection departments overstep their mandate.

AN APPEAL TO CHILD PROTECTION SOCIAL WORKERS

I once made a public entreaty to social workers engaged in child protection. Here is what I said.

“When you reflect upon the cases in which you are now or have been involved, and if within that list you readily identify families which would benefit from being together rather than apart and you have the means to affect that reconciliation, do all that you can to insure that this happens. So much rests with you. You control destinies. That seems a frightening responsibility.

Anyone occupying a role which owns the weight and the power of the child protection worker within our society, has to have the right stuff if he or she is confidently and effectively to protect the rights of children, safeguard the rights of families and parents and live with a deep contentment at the end of the day. If you see many cases where harm has been inflicted upon innocents, it is understandable that callousness develops toward the responsible caregivers. How discriminating you must be to preserve your own authentic objectivity. How discerning you must be so that can separate fact and evidence from story and assumption. 

You are a member of the public and the public depends upon you front line people to be so careful with your invested power for our sakes, the children among us, children who may require food, opportunity, protection. And by referring to “our sakes” I also intend our families, parents of children, parents who require understanding, a listening ear, parents who require advice & counsel and encouragement, grandparents whose grandchildren are their joys and for whom they hope. Make all of your action choices wisely and be gentle with us please.”

Then, many readers responded of which these are samples.1.     “There is no point appealing to SW as the presence of some good SW, if they ever exist, cannot stop this structural corruption. Nobody will jeopardize their pay cheque, job security and livelihood to uphold justice. Child protection" industry is a racket controlled by a cartel aiming to get rich by ripping off taxpayers at the expense of destroying families. The only way to stop this is by revoking child removal authority and kill CFCSA.”
2.     “Rhetoric that appears radical may not be effective or persuasive. However, revoking child removal authority by killing CFCSA is the only practical solution to end this fiasco and build a safer future for our children. Doing so will not compromise real child protection as there are other laws giving authority to separate abusive parents and children based on good evidence and legal due process. Removing the absolute power to remove will substantially reduce wrongful removal, abuse of power and corruption.”
3.     “The truth about child protection, and all the corruption, is very difficult to articulate because it is so unbelievable. A person tends to sound like a fanatic or lunatic. But just because someone sounds like this, doesn't mean they aren't telling the truth.”
4.     “I had a long history of involvement with MCFD as I was a single parent with multiples and I had a hard time coping with fatigue. Another single mom told me that if I went to my dr. and said I am depressed I could get free childcare. Big mistake!! Many years later they wanted to get me because they thought my son was mentally ill and needed meds so they re-opened a file and claimed 'historical involvement'. It got really weird for quite a while and finally I got my kids back. SO, they do return them. Just keep calm and friendly. Hopefully you are not expected to do a psychological evaluation, as that can be either very good or very bad depending on the doctor. I see now that MCFD was really jerking my chain, as they had no real evidence. They try to bluff you but most of what they write is thin and does not stand up. The case of physical injury is very hard to fight as in SBS. If a medical doctor claims you have physically injured your child, you are in for a long fight. The other stuff should not even be in court and it is a measure they now take to hold the kids until their paperwork catches up. It still can take awhile. I had to wait 4 months without my kids!!! And then there is more work too with all the 'services' they want to give. It is a tough system and all they encourage you to do is to go with their 'services' to a point, as if you do not they make sure you never get your kids back.”

MOM AMIE'S ACCOUNT OF DAY VISIT WITH AYN

Taken Yesterday, Ayn in her mom Amie's home.

After one and one half years, Ayn Van Dyk, 10 year old daughter of Amie Van Dyk and Derek Hoare was permitted to have a day with her mom in her mom’s home. This is a significant advance and perhaps, a step in the road to return which has already been intimated to Derek and Amie by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. That day occurred yesterday, Wednesday, January 16, 2013. Amie wrote about her delight on The Facebook Page dedicatedto Ayn’s return to the care of her father. Her father has been the primary caregiver ever since Amie and Derek split up some years ago. Amie respects Derek’s care of Ayn and is in full agreement that his home is where Ayn needs to be. 

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.)

INSIST ON WRITTEN RECORDS AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Today's post is once again contributed by Ray Ferris who still provides informed and supportive gratis encouragement and counsel to parents who seek him out for advice to deal with the personal crises they encounter when dealing with the social service agency known as the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Of concern today is the dispute that parents have with the representation of them contained in a social worker's documents.

Written records.

You should ask for a copy of his notes

Today I want to clarify what is a written record. The main body of the written record on the social worker’s file often consists of written material generated by the social workers and their colleagues. When a social worker records client contacts on the file, it may contain a number of things. It may be partly factual, but it can also be partly perception, opinion or conjecture. For example --- “I phoned Mrs. Jones at two this afternoon and she only answered the phone after ten rings, so I nearly hung up. I thought she sounded a bit depressed and reluctant to talk to me. I wondered if she had had a relapse into heroin use, but I decided not to ask about that, but just to ask her how she was doing and if she needed any help.” Sounds okay doesn’t it? But is it really?

The fact was that she phoned at two P.M. and it took ten rings to answer the phone. The rest was all conjecture and perception and opinion.

THIS WAS COURT DAY

THE STORY OF AYN VAN DYK

As told by her father Derek Hoare

Part Ten of Fifteen

THIS WAS COURT DAY

October 18-19, 2011

Oct 18

Arg!!! having a hard time getting myself to remember to sit down and write these on time... I'm bad. I will set an alarm in my phone to remind me; 11:30 pm.

So this was court day, much anticipated though I was working off the assumption that it was pointless... an accurate assumption it turns out. I kept Lyric home today with the faint hope that there could be a move to return. But my understanding was that if I refused to consent to their request to a 90 day temporary custody that a case conference would be ordered to see if the two sides could come together avoiding a distant and lengthy trial.

I arrived and saw no-one there I knew... Amie hadn't arrived yet, my lawyer was nowhere in sight, nor Amie's... nobody. After entering the courthouse two group members arrived and we headed into the courtroom. I saw Amie's lawyer and MCFD's lawyer as well as the SW... Still no sign of my lawyer. The hearing lasted about 10 seconds.... I did get to speak my first "word" ever in court... "Ya", when asked if it was me who was present. Surreal first word and over many months in!

OKAY, SO LOGIC DOESN’T TELL US MCFD HAS TO GO

Yesterday, an anonymously delivered comment challenged my logic and the subsequent conclusions. My title was LOGIC TELLS US MCFD HAS TO GO. I used Aristotelian premises to make unconditional statements and uncompromising deductions. The writer convincingly disputed the soundness of my comparisons and compelled me to review my thought processes.

The writer observed, “I think it is a dangerous comparison saying that child protection is either effective of ineffective. Most things are not black and white like your comparisons (cat is either white or not white, or it is either raining or not raining). One could make the same comparison that open heart surgery is either 100% effective or not 100% effective and since it is not 100% effective it should no longer be a treatment option. If we take this line of thought we could essentially make a claim to discontinue all health care treatments. I think that if something is 80% effective it is something we continue to do. To state that 100% effective is the only way we keep a program is a very odd statement. We could use that rationale to rid the need for school. As School is not 100% effective for everyone.”

That was well written and effectively argued.

I realized that I had overstated what I still believe to be true. I recognized that my piece was a virtual discard of the baby with the bathwater. I customarily seek not to do that when I write. I may have written from a weary disposition and with foggy attention to my subject.

So, forget the logic analogy. It accomplishes little and confuses the issues. What I prefer to say is that performance reviews, ministry assessments, published opinions, reports by the Representative of Children and Youth, observation of the increase of court cases and the backup of cases in the judicial system, and the personal testimonies of hundreds of grieving parents convince me that the Child, Family and Community Services Act needs to be reworked in order to better insure that the necessary role of a Ministry for Children will protect children while safeguarding families and respecting parental rights. Then I believe there will be a higher probability that apparent injustice does not occur among innocents and that corrective and restorative efforts among families succeed.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN 30 YEARS TO FRACTURE CHILD WELFARE

WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN 30 YEARS TO FRACTURE CHILD WELFARE
Written by my respected friend, Ray Ferris, author of the book “The Art of Child Protection.”

What on earth has happened over the last thirty years to transform the child welfare system from being imperfect but manageable and reasonably fair, to being totally broken and incapable of guarding the best interests of children.

Unless we find ways of fixing the system, there is no use in knowing the law and how it is supposed to work. What we need to do is to define what is broken and why and then to persuade the responsible people to fix it.

There are a number of components causing the breakdown and they cannot be fixed by throwing money at them. In fact throwing more money at them might well make it worse.

IMPROVE THE OUTCOMES

James Wenzel logo designer

There will have to be a change in casework practice within the Ministry of Children and Family Development in B.C.

I cannot comprehend why resourcing help to families is such a difficult concept to affect. Many families that  could be helped never receive help.  Of course I do not understand all of the human dynamics of individual cases. I cannot know the stresses that social workers feel when working with adults and parents who are challenged by habits, substances, and life. I do not understand how budgetary cuts have reduced the availability of services. Yet those issues do not ultimately account for what I have been learning in recent years.

MCFD HAS CHANGED AYN’S ASSIGNED SOCIAL WORKER

Listen! We all understand life and business. Sometime employees are reassigned and replaced. Sometimes personal life events require time off. So in one sense it is not surprising to learn that the Ministry social worker to whom the Ayn Van Dyk case was allocated, is off the case and a different social worker has now got the file. Of course he or she doesn’t merely have Ayn’s case with which to become familiar, but several others, perhaps many more cases. That sounds daunting. It also generates concern for parents that the resolution of their cases will be unsettled and delayed. There is apprehension that the mediation already accomplished will be misunderstood, forgotten or dismissed. That is certainly some of the unease with which Derek Hoare has been left after recent phone calls.

On Tuesday Derek said, “Well I just got off the phone with the new SW for the first time.... interesting to say the least. They would not comment on the length of absence to be expected. We seem to be looking at a very steep learning curve ahead for this worker. They are going to read the file, but as of yet seem largely unaware of where we are at in our dialog.”