BC CHILD PROTECTION PROCESS

THE CHILD PROTECTION PROCESS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

When a report is sent to Child Protection services in B.C., concerning the safety of your child, there is a flow of decisions and actions that can be charted. To describe it to you, I begin with the Investigation. That is an investigation by the Ministry of Children, and specifically a social worker who begins a file for you and/or your child and is given responsibility to examine the report information.

The Investigation may ultimately lead the social worker to one of two decisions, Protection is Required or The Case is Closed.

If the conclusion is Protection is Required, then the question Removal Required? will have either a No or Yes answer.

If the social worker concludes No (removal not required), there are two (2) possibilities.

            Parent(s) Agree with the Director to Supervision

                        Or

            The Director Requests a Supervision Order 

        If the social worker concludes Yes, (removal is required) or if parents do not agree with Director to Supervision, then it proceeds to a Presentation Hearing, where the MCFD makes its case before the Court.

            One of Four (4) Court Rulings is made,

                                            i.    No Supervision Order is granted and Child remains with Parent(s)

                                          ii.    Interim Supervision Order granted, Child remains with Parent(s) with provisos

                                         iii.    Interim Supervision Order but Child is Placed with Someone Else

                                         iv.    Interim Custody Order and Child is Placed in Foster Care

 

            Each of the last three (3) rulings may lead to a Protection Hearing, and MCFD makes its case before the Court. 

            The immediate First Step is a Case Conference when MCFD meets with parents. If no agreement results, then it proceeds to the Protection Hearing.

            One of Four (4) Court Rulings is made,

                                            i.    Temporary Supervision Order is granted and Child remains with Parent(s)

                                          ii.    Temporary Supervision Order, Child with Someone Else

                                         iii.    Temporary Custody Order, Child in Foster Care

                                         iv.    Continuing Custody Order, Child in Foster Care

A copy of this in Chart Form is available at http://www.crownpub.bc.ca 

THE COUNTDOWN HAS BEGUN

 Nine days until the TCO comes to its conclusion, that is, the end of the temporary care order applying to Ayn Van Dyk, daughter of Amie Van Dyk and Derek Hoare. Expectation is high that twelve-year-old Ayn will be returned to one of the parents, likely Amie. If that outcome is realized, one extended family will be ecstatic with a range of emotions, and a phalanx of supporters on several continents will be thrilled.

In that case I wonder what Hon. Stephanie Cadieux will think about the Ministry of Children and Family Development of which she is the Minister in charge. An individual case is customarily not a priority for a Minister but Ayn’s case will have come to her attention. It’s a unique case. It’s a distasteful case.

It’s true that Ayn’s case did not transpire during Hon. Cadieux’s watch and she came into office late in this girl’s saga but if she has apprised herself at all about the details, she will know how this story is perceived by responsible readers of facts. Ayn was taken for an apparent reason, that Derek, the sole caregiver at the time, could not manage the parental responsibility of this disruptive and unpredictable autistic child. I described it as an apparent reason, because conscientious fact-finding would have assured a diligent investigator that Derek, if not perfect, was an effective and loving parent. He was also caring for two of Ayn’s siblings, older brothers, one of whom is also autistic. That’s right. Ayn is autistic. Sizeable commitment to be sure, but Derek viewed Ayn’s behaviour as entirely predictable and her disruptions when they occurred were manageable through his conversational persuasion. He was the Ayn Whisperer.

She was at home and happy, and she was also curious, understandably so, because she was autistic, and as an autistic child sometimes does, or, any child does, she scaled the backyard fence one afternoon and explored her neighbourhood. She didn’t venture far. The RCMP found her at a nearby neighbour’s yard. Derek felt he had no option but to call for help when he couldn’t locate her. But of course, RCMP must make reports, and the Ms. Cadieux’s Ministry was called in, before it was Ms. Cadieux’s ministry, and the administrator and social workers expected Derek to voluntarily sign a release form to let them take Ayn from him. Even if this appropriation was temporary, he was opposed to it, vehemently to say the least. So MCFD affected a surreptitious seizure of the child while she was at school. This was in June of 2011.

You read that date correctly. Even if Ayn was taken so she could be examined medically, socially and psychologically, even Hon. Cadieux will have to admit that three years is an excessive examination period and I would add, an unwarranted length of time to keep the child from her family and in the care of strangers who become simulated family. It doesn’t matter how positive the foster parenting has been, the conduct of the Ministry in this case is reprehensible, inexcusable. If Hon Stephanie Cadieux wants to make a significant mark on this Ministry during the brief time she holds this portfolio, because Ministers get switched around with frequency, I recommend that she delve with determination into the reasons why there are numerous cases of children being removed and then withheld from responsible parents and grandparents for extended times, and then meet that inquiry with suitable procedures to return children speedily. Perhaps she can expedite an unraveling of the mystery of red tape so that twelve-year-old girls do not miss three years of their lives with those who love them most.

Derek and Amie do not live together. Their marriage dissolved years ago, but with mutual respect Amie supported Derek’s single parenting of all three children. There is much that I do not know, but I am assuming Amie will be thrilled to see her daughter released from government care, even if she is returned to Derek. If the judge, on the recommendation of MCFD, rules that Ayn be returned to Amie, and Amie is able and willing, as I believe she is, that may be a wise step as this young woman enters her teen years. I trust that Derek will acknowledge the wisdom of such a move. Furthermore, I trust as well that both parents will find ways of allowing these children to see each other frequently. The countdown of days has begun again.

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.

SHOULD GOVERNMENTS ENFORCE LIMITS ON HOW LONG CHILDREN CAN BE KEPT IN TEMPORARY CARE?

Should governments enforce limits on how long children can be kept in temporary care?

That’s the premier question following the Bayne story which was aired by Kathy Tomlinson last night on CBC’s Go Public broadcast. It was an article written by the CBC Community Team  at 4:36 PM January 3, 2012  and it received 10 comments.  Of course the question generates reader response. It begs for response. But what an undiscerning question. Why ask the question at all? It is precisely because enforcement is a given, a natural expectation, that we have laws and codified prescriptions. They are legislated for the purpose of compliance by the citizens of a society regardless of whether one is an employee of the government in power or one of its agencies or is a civilian dwelling in the region governed by that government. There are penalties for contravening laws and regulations. From what kind of understanding of citizenry and governance does such a question arise? What could possibly suggest an immunity for child protection social workers and their supervisors from absolute compliance with the legislated limitations dictated by the Child, Family and Community Services Act? If there are mitigating circumstances peculiar to a specific case then there is latitude afforded to MCFD to seek a court order that extends limitations for holding on to a child. I am prepared to say that even at the risk of overlooking severely unusual circumstances, there should categorically be no allowance for keeping a child in protective care for a time longer than that allowed by law or legislated act.

So, YES, governments should enforce limits on how long children can be kept in temporary care.