TURPEL LAFOND IS OUR MCFD WATCHDOG / Part 189 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

In the words of Ralph W. Sockman, “The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.”

Minority player Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is demonstrating a level of courage that should evoke in the public a rush of confidence and support because she is taking the Ministry of Children and Family Development to court for a justifiable reason. That government ministry with the majority hand, recently acted in a manner that may be an embarrassment. MCFD system operations are well secreted from public eyes and Turpel-Lafond is our watchdog.

After years of performance questions and criticism, the MCFD was reviewed by a select group chaired by Hon. Ted Hughes a few years ago. Among his many recommendations in the Children and Youth Review was the creation of the Office of an objective representative for children and youth. Mr. Hughes was convinced that an independent officer of the legislature could provide valuable perspective on child services and help to improve British Columbia’s child-serving system. The Review was quite critical of the management of the Ministry of Children and Family Development yet Mr. Hughes was powerfully supportive of the work of front-line child welfare workers employed by MCFD.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is British Columbia’s first Representative for Children and Youth. The mandate of her office is articulated in its own act, the Representative for Children and Youth Act. The Act presents a range of powers, duties and functions. There are four sections. • provide advocacy services for vulnerable children and youth and their families respecting designated services. • investigate critical injuries and deaths of children receiving child welfare services. • monitor and evaluate services to children, youth and their families to ensure their effectiveness and responsiveness, and thereby raising the degree to which the child-serving system is accountable publicly. • Finally, conduct evidence-based research that enables us to make recommendations aimed at enhancing the future development and delivery of services for vulnerable children and youth in BC.

Her office is in our (the Public's) best interests. She is B.C.’s independent child welfare watchdog. Candidly her role should be regarded as being in the government's best interests if it wants to enhance so many levels of its service to our communities. Yet Ms. Turpel-Lafond is compelled to fight for her independence right now. When B.C.’s independent child welfare rep. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond sought cabinet documents to complete an audit, the BC Liberal government introduced legislation denying her access. She filed a court petition last Tuesday saying she had hit the wall in her efforts to get government information she needs to gauge how well protected children are in B.C.

Children’s Minister Mary Polak called the petition a “waste of scarce resources” and said Turpel-Lafond’s access would be blocked unless she signs a “protocol agreement” on confidentiality — an agreement Turpel-Lafond refuses to sign. Come on Ms. Polak, don't get sucked into this protectionist posture. Who is advising you?

You should read the stories all over the press and online ….
- In the Coquitlam Now News , May 12th article “Information critical to protecting kids”
- “Minister defends decision on access to documents” Access granted to B.C.'s representative for children is 'unprecedented': Polak By Jennifer Moreau, Burnaby Now May 12, 2010
- Children's rep is fighting for independence”, By Paul Willcocks, Times Colonist May 12, 2010
- B.C.'s child-welfare watchdog gets early court date for petition against B.C. Government", By Rob Shaw, timescolonist.com May 6, 2010 and Vancouver Sun
- WHAT IS MCFD TRYING TO HIDE?, May 03, 2010, Tracey Young, MSW RSW

MCFD Staff Shortage / Part 188 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

A New Series: MCFD child protection is not working for children and families. The system is broken. The Bayne Family is currently the high profile display case that illustrates where and why the breakdowns repeatedly occur. An analysis may prescribe corrections.


EPISODE THREE: MCFD STAFF SHORTAGE IMPLICATIONS

Families matter. That's the primary reason I mention child protection staff shortages. Of course the shortages have implications for MCFD administrators and for social workers, and that matters. However, it is how these shortages impact the families already involved with MCFD and others inevitably to be entangled with MCFD that truly matters to me.

There are over 9,000 B.C. children living in the care of the Ministry. More than fifty percent of these are Aboriginal. Consider the potential for hundreds of families to receive inadequate service by an understaffed, under resourced MCFD.

An independent review of the B.C. child protection system was published in 2006 under the title 'The B.C. Children and Youth Review (The Hughes Report). It bears the name of his author, Justice Ted Hughes. Shortage of child protection staff had several implications for Hughes. It is not easy to fill the positions left by departing social workers. Child protection social work is not everyone's dream portfolio. Hughes called it the most difficult government job. In speaking to the skill set required for child protection work, the Hughes report mentioned formal training, toughness, warmth, intelligence, compassion, decisiveness and determination are requisite. That's an interesting but plausible list and it strikes me that if social workers are hired who lack half of those protection skills, the service provided will be inferior.

One of MCFD's responses to the Hughes Report was the addition of 180 positions in child protection and mental health services but that was negated by a provincial budget projection in February 2009 calling for a decrease of 185 jobs. Social workers have their own concerns with staff turnovers but so do the parents whose children are in the MCFD system. Parents have at times had to work with an array of social workers and this discontinuity is not merely frustrating to parents but discouraging because relationships, service, understanding, history and data gathering are interrupted.

Resource: Two informative study projects 'Hands Tied' and 'Broken Promises' produced by Pivot Legal Society of Vancouver, a non-profit legal advocacy organization. Pivot Legal Society, 678 Hastings St East, Vancouver, B.C. V6A 1R1 Canada, Tel. (+1) 604 255 9700 / www.pivotlegal.org

BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD / Part 187 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

A New Series: MCFD child protection is not working for children and families. The system is broken. The Bayne Family is currently the high profile display case that illustrates where and why the breakdowns repeatedly occur. An analysis may prescribe corrections.

EPISODE TWO: BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD

109 child protection workers formerly employed by MCFD participated in a survey, the results of which are insightful if Ms. Dutoit and Ms. Polak want to improve system functions for families and employees.


The Child, Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA) is the cornerstone of B.C.'s child welfare program and it cites as its guiding principle “the best interests of the child.” Present MCFD child protection social workers may believe that they are empowered to act consistently in a child's best interests. On the other hand many may not. They may feel conflicted because they want to do more for a child or take different actions or even to speak out, but they cannot. That is what caused many of the survey respondents to say that they felt they had not been able to accomplish 'best interest' results for children. Many felt they gave inadequate service to children and/or families because of deficient resources, overwhelming case loads and burdensome clerical duties. CFCSA proposes a family-centred approach to child protection services that is supportive of parents and extended families and many respondents stated that they were unable to achieve that end result and did not have access to preventative and supportive service options before the disruptive removal of a child. This services shortage is due largely to the government’s budgetary cutback which impairs the child protection system from fulfilling its mandate to families. The government must re-evaluate priorities and bump up its financial commitment to children and youth so that parents and families no longer become casualties in a system that is failing to support families to keep their children safe in the home and to preserve their children's cultural and kinship connections.

Resource: Two informative study projects 'Hands Tied' and 'Broken Promises' produced by Pivot Legal Society of Vancouver, a non-profit legal advocacy organization. Pivot Legal Society, 678 Hastings St East, Vancouver, B.C. V6A 1R1 Canada, Tel. (+1) 604 255 9700 / www.pivotlegal.org

EXIT INTERVIEW / Part 186 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

A New Series: MCFD child protection is not working for children and families. The system is broken. The Bayne Family is currently the high profile display case that illustrates where and why the breakdowns repeatedly occur. An analysis may prescribe corrections.

EPISODE ONE: EXIT INTERVIEW

MCFD is losing at least ten percent of its staff every year. Social Workers leave MCFD. Knowing why they leave might be valuable information in retooling yet again.

The legislation entitled Child Family and Community Services Act (“CFCSA”) was inaugurated in 1996 with great promise that child welfare and protection would experience a manner of service delivery devoted to the support of families caring for children in the family home. Social workers wanted to be associated with such progressive intentions. For the past many years many social workers have been jumping ship for personal reasons but often because child protection practices are not living up to expectations. Child protection practices are not living up to CFCSA principles.

More sick days are logged by MCFD staff than across other government departments. Then many of them leave. Social workers leave because they are unable to deal with work related stress. Social workers leave because they are dismayed that they cannot accomplish superior work when the system is under-resourced in terms of personnel and services. They feel that they are unable to accomplish the outcomes projected by the CFCSA of affecting a family centred approach to child protection that actually supports the parents and extended family and communities to care for children safely. Social workers feel they have unmanageable case loads. They do not have funding for or access to preventative and supportive resources with which to help either children or parents. Social workers leave because the system is crisis driven rather than care and solution driven. Social workers leave because they have lost confidence in management and supervisory leadership.

Social workers say that they might stay if they had reduced caseloads and access to improved services and supports for families.

Resource: Two informative study projects 'Hands Tied' and 'Broken Promises' produced by Pivot Legal Society of Vancouver, a non-profit legal advocacy organization. Pivot Legal Society, 678 Hastings St East, Vancouver, B.C. V6A 1R1 Canada, Tel. (+1) 604 255 9700 / www.pivotlegal.org

TO ZABETH ON MOTHER'S DAY

Paul wrote a comment to his wife Zabeth today that I thought should be profiled here.

Paul Bayne said...

I just wanted to take this opportunity to celebrate my wife and the mother of my three beautiful children. She has sacrificed and pressed on with her duties out of sheer love and devotion to her family, in spite of the lies and attacks. I can only think of Prov. 31.10 that says, "10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies."
Thank you Zabeth for being my darling wife and for fighting so relentlessly and tirelessly for our children, you truly are an amazing woman! Happy Mother's Day!
"Any woman can have babies but it's a Mommy that knows what to do with them."

Paul Bayne
May 9, 2010 8:50 AM

A Request

Please send Zabeth a Mother's Day greeting in a comment here, thanks.

ADOPTION IS THE MINISTRY PLAN / Part 185 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

On Friday May 7th I posted THE CHILDREN ARE THE AWARD in which I stated there are good people on both sides of this case. I believe that to be true. So I don't get it. I try to understand what drives MCFD/Fraser Region's motivation.

All the social workers across this province who have been conflicted with management over treatment of parents or been dismayed by lack of resources with which to help families, will recognize what is happening in the Bayne case. The management and social workers of the MCFD/Fraser Region are taking this family down the road to dissolution as a family and reconstitution as two new entities, maybe more. According to the plan, Paul and Zabeth will be childless. The children will become members in a new family. Perhaps the youngest child, the daughter, will be placed in yet another family. But why? Would MCFD/Fraser return the children if Paul and Zabeth admitted that one or both of them had injured their youngest child? Is that what it takes? How Draconian! How legalistic! Like a Kafkaesque fantasy, an unrealistic terror! Don't tell me for a moment that the Baynes brought this on themselves. An empathetic, effective, equipped social working team could have resolved this for the benefit of this entire family keeping them together and still satisfying the MCFD mandate.

This is what Section 50 of the 'Child, Family and community Services Act' says about the effect of a continuing custody order. When the Court makes an order placing the children in the continuing custody of a director, the director then becomes the sole guardian of the persons of those children and the director may consent to the adoption of these children.

Then in the BC Adoption Act, Section 13 (3) tells us that the only consents required are the director's consent and the child's consent, the latter being dispensed when the children are as young as the Bayne children are. The purpose of the Adoption Act is “to provide for new and permanent family ties through adoption, giving paramount consideration in every respect to the child's best interests.” Give the Bayne children back to Zabeth and Paul and that will be tantamount to a new and permanent home because the children have been kept in a temporary state for so long by the Ministry. The best interests of the child are defined by the following points of Section 3 which says that “All relevant factors must be considered in determining the child's best interests, including for example: (a) the child's safety; (b) the child's physical and emotional needs and level of development; (c) the importance of continuity in the child's care; (d) the importance to the child's development of having a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family; (e) the quality of the relationship the child has with a birth parent or other individual and the effect of maintaining that relationship; (f) the child's cultural, racial, linguistic and religious heritage; (g) the child's views; (h) the effect on the child if there is delay in making a decision."

How relevant are any of these factors when the Ministry has ignored almost every one of them for the 2.5 years that it has held the children in temporary arrangements outside the home and care of the child's own parents? The only factor to which MCFD gave attention for all this time was the safety of the children and that misapplied concern became the driving factor for all of this harassment, hardship and heartache that has burdened these three children for most of their lives. This heart-rending separation did not keep the children safe in every sense. They have been damaged. They are scarred. They will not be better for this.

AND THIS IS MOTHER'S DAY.

Paul and Zabeth are thankful that they have been given two hours today to spend with their children. They will treasure these 120 minutes. Recently they were even told that they may resume taking a few photographs of the children by which to remember them in between visits.

Let's pray that the offensive plan never becomes realized by the Ministry, for the childrens' sakes and for their parents' sakes.

APPLICATION WAS DENIED / Part 184 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

We are in the midst of a Continuing Custody hearing which according to Section 50 of the 'Child, Family and community Services Act' is the ruling by which the Court may make an order placing all three Bayne children in the continuing custody of a director. The director then becomes the sole guardian of the persons of those three children and the director may consent to the adoption of these children. Defending against this is a very serious even desperate endeavour.

Fifteen days of evidence and testimony by the Ministry counsel has already been conducted and transcribed. Then we went into a delay in late February and ever since we have been waiting for a new dates in which to conclude the hearing. We learned that August 9-13, 2010 have been reserved. Judge Crabtree expressed his desire to locate earlier dates if possible.

On the last day of the primary hearing on February 24th, Judge Crabtree permitted Baynes' attorney Doug Christie to present an application to have the boys returned to Paul and Zabeth under a supervision care order persuent to the terns by written document produced during the trial and marked exhibit 3. It is the mediation agreement from May 16, 2008 which the Ministry claimed was breached when Global TV ran a story. It was an unusual step in the midst of a Continuing Custody hearing. Mr. Christie provided several salient reasons for this action.

Ministry lawyer Finn Jensen had his opportunity to oppose this application on April 29th, 2010 essentially arguing that Judge Crabtree was not in a position to make a ruling on a matter of this nature at this juncture in the CC hearing. .

Yesterday, May 7th was the scheduled day for Justice Thomas Crabtree to deliver his ruling on this application for custody of the boys. I was there. Ministry personnel Berhe Gulbot and Loren Humeny were observers. Mr. Christie was listening via telephone connection. The Baynes had a few supporters present in the court room. As a matter of fact this same application for the return of the boys has been presented by the Baynes on two previous occasions, once before Judge Crabtree and another time before Judge Maltby and in both instances the application was denied. Judge Crabtree informatively provided a background of the case, time lines, key events and decisions. He then recited Doug Christie's grounds for granting this petition as well Finn Jensen's objections. Judge Crabtree demonstrated that he had studiously processed Mr. Christie's points and one by one he was compelled to decide that to issue a ruling on this application in the middle of the CC hearing would be an error in law. In making this response he was very careful about his remarks lest there be any hint of bias in one direction or the other.

The judge then permitted the Bayne's to introduce their application for increased visitation privileges. The papers were received and the matter will be heard on some time between May 25th to 28th.

Zabeth' and Paul's faith, composure and courage continues to amaze me.

NEWS REPORT

A brief note now - more later
Judge Crabtree gave his ruling today.
We are disappointed. The application for the immediate return of the two boys was denied.
Justice Crabtree took time to give background history, arguments from both counsels, Christie and Jensen, and then laid out his reasons for the decision at which he had arrived.
He deemed that a ruling to award the children to the Baynes now when the case is not completed, would be an error of law, and could be perceived as a bias toward the Baynes. I got the distinct impression that the Judge was being fair and very careful lest a decision now would become fuel for a Ministry appeal later.
Paul and Zabeth were stoic and very controlled and able to meet in conversation with friends following the hearing. They are looking forward to the two hours with their children on Mother's Day.

NOTICE

The Baynes' Case Worker has arranged a Mother's Day visit for the Family. We are thankful for that courtesy.

Also, Today at 1:30 PM Judge Crabtree presents his ruling on the the Bayne Application for Custody of their two boys.