MOMMIE'S LATEST REPORT ON HER VISITS WITH AYN

Amie Van Dyk, Ayn's mom sees her regularly now and her recent March 24th update is an encouraging one. Ayn is the ten year old girl who was taken from her father's care in June 2011 and still remains the custody and care of the Ministry of Children in B.C. She is a girl with autism. YOU WILL WANT TO HEAR WHAT HER MOM SAYS SO PLEASE READ ON.

Part 1 of 3, A BRIEF EMOTIONAL FLASHBACK

AYN, today, 18 mo older than when she left

Amie Van Dyk is mom to Ayn, the ten-year-old girl who has been in foster care since June 2011. Amie and her ex-husband Derek Hoare, have agreed that he should be the primary caregiver for their three children, who include two sons, older than Ayn. Derek has had custody and care of the trio since the parents’ marriage dissolved, at least that’s all the marital details any of us casual readers need to know. What is of importance to us if we care to understand the dynamic of this situation is that two of three children are autistic. One of them is Ayn. As it pertains to visitation with the children and other arrangements concerning them, Aime and Derek have a sensible relationship and understanding.

It was during the summer of 2011 that Ayn was playing in the back yard of the home in which Derek and the three siblings lived, that Ayn wandered off. Ayn is a lovely girl, playful, affectionate, and in some regards challenging. Derek who learned how to communicate tranquilly with her, always met the challenges capably. But a healthy father-daughter relationship does not eliminate a child’s curiosity, and on a June afternoon, Ayn decided to explore the neighbourhood.  When Derek noticed that she had scaled the high fence and left the fairly secure yard, he searched and couldn’t find her. Anxious about this, he called for police assistance, and three hours later Ayn was located in a neighbour’s yard just a couple of homes away. The reunion was joyful but also short-lived. Within a couple of days, MCFD showed up as two social workers with a voluntary surrender of custody form that Derek could sign, or they would simply remove the child without his permission. MCFD conducted that seizure at Ayn’s school one day.

Initial observation of the girl’s treatment following that removal, was then, and is now questionable to many, appalling to others. For some weeks the child carried a photo of her daddy, wanting him, missing him, wondering where he was and when he would come for her. And in the early weeks she was given medications, anti-psychotic drugs, a host of them was Derek’s informed allegation. Professionals may handle the aggressive episodes of an autistic girl that way. A loving parent predisposed to non-doping but rather communicative interventions, did not. That’s a brief history of the basic information. A volume of emotions goes along with the history.

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 HAS NOT VISITED HIS DAUGHTER

Derek has not visited Ayn since she was removed on June 16, 2011. The opportunity has been presented to him. He has chosen not to visit Ayn. Derek has been separated from his wife Amie for three years. During that time Amie and Ayn have become accustomed to Amie’s periodic visits. So, during the five months that Ayn has been in foster care, her mom Amie, has had regular visitations with Ayn and permission was given for these to be unsupervised visits. Ayn has not interpreted her mom’s coming and going as unusual. Derek, on the other hand has not visited his daughter but he misses her incredibly.

Derek is not a foolish father but rather someone who weighs consequences carefully. He has been Ayn’s primary caregiver. He is a full-time father to all three of his children. That has been an agreement that he and Amie have established. Amie has respect for Derek as a father. Then why would he not visit this sweetheart whom he loves. He knows that his decision not to visit is one that requires explanation and he has articulated this in a statement which I will share here today.

UPDATE ON JOSIAH'S CONDITION / 498

Josiah has been discharged from hospital on Saturday.
On Friday evening Zabeth and Paul were permitted to see Josiah in hospital from 5:00 – 7:00 PM.

THE CHILDREN MAY SEE THEIR HOME / Part 326/ For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Yesterday, Friday, Judge Crabtree delivered his video conferenced ruling on the MCFD application to adjust the earlier court ordered three day visitation schedule of three hours each, to a schedule of one three hour visit plus a six hour visit on Saturday and this to accommodate the children's school life, extra curricular activities and appointments. There was more to this application but this was the primary item. Dear brave Zabeth, spoke on behalf of her husband and herself and her three children while the MCFD Director had his counsel Finn Jensen representing MCFD interests when they made their brief 30 minute presentations on Thursday afternoon.

On Friday Judge Crabtree told the Baynes and the MCFD representatives that he had reviewed both submissions with regard to the application. He made it clear that his ruling Friday is based solely upon those submissions on Thursday and unrelated to the general court hearing. His ruling on Friday was not based upon an any assessment of the court evidence to date. He wanted that understood. He is very aware that Mr. Jensen has another half day of summary on October 6^th and no decision on the CCO has been made until the summary concludes and the Bayne counsel writes a closing statement in response to the Jensen summary.

Judge Crabtree recognizes that his previous visitation order was based upon a summer schedule and that now during the school year there has been an increase in the children's activities as well as social engagements and medical appointments. He notes that MCFD identifies some behavioral issues with a couple of the children and he acknowledges that some of this is plainly the result of being removed from their home for such a long period of time and this is being resolved by this hearing now.

Judge Crabtree therefore granted the MCFD request for two days access rather than three days, thus interfering with frequency. However, the total of nine hours of visitation remains intact. He did not grant the Bayne request for unsupervised visitation but what he did give the Baynes was the possibility of having those six hours on Saturday in their own home. That means supervised visits in their own home, of course contingent upon an in home assessment which means that two social workers will come to their home to inspect the facilities. Special family events and occasions are to be accommodated as visitation opps as well.

This in home inspection is to happen before October 6^th so that any resultant issues my be resolved by THE JUDGE on that day of THE CLOSING SUMMATION.

To the Blog Reader: Some serious reservations arise for me with regard to six hours of visitation time in your own home with a note taking supervisor sitting in your space the entire time. Do some concerns come to your mind as well? Zabeth alluded in court this week to the difficulty they experience during visitation, to know how to respond appropriately to child behaviour that requires some correction or discipline when a supervisor is observing and recording. Will they be deemed too lenient or too severe? And then I wonder what kind of reporting results from a supervisor compelled to put in six hours at one time, weekly. Do the comments become more critical and condemning at the fourth, fifth and sixth hours? How stressful will it be for Paul and Zabeth to put in this kind of time under such intense scrutiny. It is abnormal and uncomfortable. Within six hours there are many potty breaks, snacks, meals, naps perhaps, outside play, inside play, gabbing, talking story reading and who knows what else. Will the supervisor be scolding them and warning them again not to speak of the past or the future or giving children hope or escorting them to the john? The children will be living for six hours among the toys and familiar items of their past family life. It will be natural even instinctive for a mom to make sure her daughter is okay in the bathroom. Is the supervisor under instruction by the Ministry workers to give the parents trouble, badger them, intimidate them and be alert to situations that can be used to verify their unfitness. I don't know. I am asking.  

BUT BELIEVE ME I AM THRILLED THAT THE BAYNES HAVE THIS TIME WITH THEIR CHILDREN IN THIS VENUE.

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.

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 45 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

Just Suppose, and Then ... Realize It's Really True

Of the 168 hours in each week, Paul and Zabeth Bayne are permitted to visit with their three children for six hours, which is three hours on each of two afternoons per week from 12 noon until 3 pm. Does that seem reasonable? It doesn’t have to be reasonable when it is what the Ministry permits.

Get serious about this please readers. If you have children and you love them, does six hours per week do it for you? If you have children and you take parenting seriously, can you affect your purposes in six hours? If you have children and you also possess moral, ethical and spiritual life values you wish to instill in your children, can you accomplish this in six hours? Well, no, but you are going to realize you have no alternative and you will give it a good try won’t you?

Suppose that during every visitation that you have with your children a social worker is sitting as an audience of one, taking note of all that you do and that you say with your children. Well then suppose that a social worker takes you aside one day and tells you that you are not permitted to speak to your children about the past, their past with you, their lives as a family in which you are involved. Suppose that you are told that you may not speak to your children about the future – that is, you are not permitted to convey any hope that you will be a family together one day again. You are not allowed to give them that hope even though the child says, “I want to come home.” A child that has not been ‘home’ for two years. Suppose that you are told that such information about the past or the future only confuses the child’s loyalties and they should become loyal to the foster parent(s). Suppose that you are told that you cannot send a love note or card to your child without first sending it to the Ministry for approval. Suppose that you are told you may not help your children eat their food when you are visiting them. They are supposed to help themselves and suppose that two of your children are 4 yrs and 2 yrs of age and further suppose that your children weigh less now than they did when the Ministry took them from you. Suppose you are forbidden to assist your children to go to the bathroom during your visit. They are supposed to manage these personal tasks on their own, to care for and to clean themselves. Keep on supposing that it is explained to you that failure to comply with these instructions will be noted in the social worker’s journal and this non compliance may mean forfeiture of visitation privileges and will further impair any possibility of regaining custody of your children. Suppose that the social worker is merely doing the assigned job that is an agreed upon method of operation. Suppose that you asked that you might have a printed copy of these stipulations or even the copy from which the social worker just read to you but that you are denied. And now suppose that you make a moral decision that you will not stop telling your children that you love them regardless of what a Ministry threatens to do.

And now, don’t suppose any longer, but realize that this is what Paul and Zabeth Bayne have reported as their experience. And MCFD employees and social workers, I ask you to imagine yourselves as parents in whose lives this present child protection system has become involved in the ways that I have "merely supposed." You know that there is a better way. There is a way to be discerning between lousy parents who do require imposed controls and good parents for whom such impositions are scandalous.

Sign this Petition. 450 people have already signed. Do not make an ONLINE BAYNE CAMPAIGN DONATION at this petition site. Once you sign, exit the site. Your signature will still appear.