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.

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.

ABSENTEE CHILDREN / Part 247 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Each day that Paul and Zabeth awake, they step past rooms in which their children's things are contained and because the children are gone, these clothes and toys are transformed into the signs of their absence. These lonely suffering people begin another day, like so many other days, hundreds of days. It takes their breath away. They start the day with a punch to the gut. Yet graciously the day may be one of the three each week during which three hours are allocated for them to visit with the children who no longer live in their home. The mornings cannot pass soon enough. These afternoon minutes are joy-filled, each treasured and remembered. Children fill Paul's and Zabeth's embrace, climb on their laps, sit astride Paul's shoulders, snuggle into Zabeth's neck. Always, always a supervisor sits as close to this action as possible to hear each verbal exchange, each endearment, each casual comment. A supervisor with the responsibility and the gall to remonstrate these parents if either does or says anything that has previously forbidden. The prohibition may pertain to a conversation topic or taking a child to the washroom. Even the brief snatches of family sanity and wholeness are moderated by an invasion of excessive control. On the other four days each week, Paul and Zabeth live with a reality that should only be a nightmare from which they can awake. The children are not there. They don't sit together for bowls of cereal. They don't ask mom and dad to take them to the beach. They don't make children's sounds at play. Their rooms are silent.

CRABTREE RULES / Part 221 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Although the hearing with regard to the Ministry application for a Continuing Care Order is still not completed, the Judge has allowed the Baynes to proceed with an application not only for increased access time with their children but for unsupervised time. You must know that the Baynes have presently interim supervised access. Yesterday, Monday June 14th, the Judge ruled on this application.

The Baynes applied for this:
1.Increase in existing access from two times a week visits at three hours a visit to three times a week at four hours a visit.
2.Visitation to be arranged at the home of Marvin and Ruth Hunt (family friends)
3.Family occasions to be together on all special occasions
4.Mr. And Mrs Baynes attendance at preschool and kindergarten activities as well as to assist at them.
5.To be informed of doctors appointments and to attend
6.Weekends unsupervised access

The Judge gave them this:
1.That access shall be increased from two times a week for three hours each to three times a week for three hours.
2.Reasonable access on special occasions
3.The parents can attend preschool and kindergarten functions in the same manner that other parents do with their children.
4.All information for doctors appointments be sent by email to the parents and if the doctors consents in advance and in writing that the parents can attend.
5.The visitation request to be at the Hunts residence and overnight unsupervised access is denied.

In brief, Judge Crabtree gave them 50% more visitation time in addition to numerous other access opportunities. He also made it clear that distinct, written communication must be provided to the Baynes by the Ministry with regard to all such access opps and it affords them greater involvement in the details of their children's wellbeing.

I view this as a significant award by a judge who is not impressed with the Ministry's legal case to take the Bayne children away from their parents once and for ever. Clearly that is my personal opinion, my read of not only the lack of Ministry evidence in the case but also my interpretation of the meaning of this ruling itself. I am confident that the Judge would have given the Baynes unsupervised access now if not for the perception and the potential challenge that such a ruling would have furnished to the Ministry that the ruling was prejudicial and therefore detrimental to the Judge's final objective ruling on the unfinished hearing. What he granted today was within his power to do, that is, to encourage the Baynes and to mess with the Director's strict control of his interim order over these children. The Judge is the one with the ultimate power and doesn't that bite! Further, the Ministry was unable to make a case to convince Judge Crabtree that the Baynes are such high risk people that they should not have more time with their children but less, much less, in fact no time at all, example: a CCO. The Ministry's affidavit to counter this application was as weak as water and further underscored that when all is said and done in August, these children are coming home. That's because a circumspect Judge deems the Baynes to be good and fit and reliable parents and it is in the children's best interests that they come home, and social workers in the system should applaud – this is not a competition.

SUPERVISED VISITATION / Part 161 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Supervision during Parental Visits with Children

Don't press the supervised visitation arrow. It's misleading.

This blog post will not be the full story. I am asking that some of you who have had experience with supervised visits, will write a comment to inform the rest of us.

One might think that it should be relatively uncomplicated for parents to visit their children who presently are being held in Ministry care. One might also assume that supervision is unnecessary.

MCFD will always maintain that supervised visits are necessary to insure the safety of the child.
This means that a supervisor is present for each visit between forcibly separated children and parents. A supervisor takes notes.

What becomes clear from the paper and reporting trail of countless case histories is that the supervised visit is an important and invaluable source of information for the Ministry. The information is a collage of observations, impressions and opinions written by the supervisor during the visit. These seldom work to the benefit of the parent(s).

Different types of supervision prescribed by MCFD are noteworthy.

1. A supervised visit might occur in a child-friendly room in the MCFD office suite. These can be two hour visits. They can be conducted without a supervisor in the visiting room. In some cases one way mirrored walls provide opportunity for supervision by social workers secreted behind the wall. This visitation space is free to the parent and means that the MCFD is not required to contract a third party to either transport the children or to monitor the visit in an independent location. In the office environment, if a supervisor is assigned to sit in during the visit, it may be a social worker but may also be an uncertified employee paid a per hour stipend. In the latter scenario, the employee has a modicum of training for this task including how to perform supervision and to write notes. The form used by the supervisor can be a standard fill-in form.

2. A part-time uncertified MCFD employee (not a social worker) is paid per hour to transport the children from the foster home to the parental home for an in-house visit. These may be 90 minute visits. The more acculturated the supervisor has become to MCFD practice the more predictably the supervisor’s notes suggest diminished affection between children and parents(s) and the more they infer or portray perceived problems. Further, the supervisor exercises control over parents by imposing restrictions upon the parents and children i.e. topics of communication, gestures and signs.

3. The visit takes place in a neutral or independent location supervised by an employee of a company or service provider contracted to transport children and to monitor the visit and take notes. Two local supervisory visitation providers Tin Harbour and NICCSS. Tin is an acronym for ‘Teens in Need’ and it was established in 1994. It’s website provides information about Tin. With few exceptions for court ordered visitations, Tin works for the Ministry of Children and Family Development almost exclusively. The work consists of supplying the transportation for children from the foster home to the visitation destination and return. Charges to the Ministry are for travel and reports. NCCSS is the other company doing supervision and its website identifies the details of its services.

Both of these service providers charge about $40/hour and double that on holidays but holidays I have learned are virtually impossible to obtain unless booked very well in advance.

Supervision procedure according to parents:
1. Parents never gain access to a supervisor’s written reports and are therefore unable to refute information that would be mistaken, imprecise, inaccurate or incorrect.
2. Parents are disadvantaged as well because they are not permitted to have guests in attendance lest they become witnesses in favour of the parents.
3. Parents are customarily not permitted to use video equipment during visitation and photos with digital cameras are permitted with supervision only.
4. Supervision is scheduled during regular working day hours, arranged at the convenience of the Ministry and the contracted service providers but seldom or never in consideration of the parents. Parents must miss work or surrender day jobs for evening work or miss their visits. Parents do not have input into the scheduling of visits.
5. Parents testify that the contracted supervision companies have given evidence that their reports tend to reflect the present position of MCFD with respect to the parents, so reports by the same supervisor who has reported parental inattentiveness or lack of affection by parents or children, may capriciously transform into positive affirmations when MCFD is moving to return the children.

I grant that my opinion of supervised visitation is shaped by injured parents but what they say is easily enough to disturb me. Some of the things that I hear should not be happening.