COMPARATIVES BETWEEN RCMP & MCFD / Part 363 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Let's Compare the investigative practices of MCFD and RCMP

None of this affords me pleasure. I have all of my life held our governments and their agencies and law enforcement in high esteem. I have had little reason to question their integrity and uprightness. This past year because of my introduction to the injustice suffered by one family I have been exposed to the scores of other stories close to home and I have grown apprehensive and dismayed. My research suggests that child protection has lost its way in every province and if that was not startling enough in every civilized society. What is equably written here in this blog is blasted out with vehement rhetoric in newspapers, magazines, online websites and blogs all over the world. I have developed a unpleasant case of cynicism over these months. I am unsure whether it is a treatable condition. For the short term, I know I will have relief when the Baynes get their children back. But what about the thousands of other children who must stay in care away from the parents with whom they desire to live and who love them.

RCMP Coat of Arms

Similarities between MCFD operations and the deficiencies in RCMP investigations

A pattern of deficiencies in RCMP investigative processes have been uncovered in recent well publicized cases and we recognize some parallels in the way MCFD is processing child protection cases. These are deficiencies have been mentioned:

a. A preset mentality that someone is guilty - MCFD is similarly inclined to form an attitude that the parent(s) is guilty of some kind of abuse or neglect and so does all in their power to produce evidence however insubstantial.

b. Ignoring available evidence or actual evidence that contradicts the preset - Similarly MCFD predictably filters acquired evidence in order to promote that evidence which supports its view of the situation and it has failed to interview available and potential witnesses who would not support the preset mindset.

c. Pressing forward with the prosecution process by laying charges anyway – Similarly MCFD in the Family Court will continue their prosecution or persecution of parents involved to deny them justice and convince the Court of the charges they have against the family. I have witnessed this myself.

Factors in MCFD investigations of families:

a) MCFD says that it takes a forensic approach. This is acceptable provided that a balanced and thorough investigation is conducted in response to allegations, but often allegations have little substance.

b) Typically MCFD looks only for that which is wrong or deficient in a family scenario and places the parenting in the worst possible light ignoring all their admirable points.

c) Often investigators accept the views of those who support allegations while ignoring the advocacy of those who support the family.

d) Interviewing children who are considered at risk often is inferior, while parents may not be interviewed at all prior to the removal of children.

e) Many notifications of concern about children and false allegations against parents are found by MCFD investigation to require no further action.

f) Nevertheless, many investigations are pursued with a purpose to find something significantly wrong in order to justify the previous over-reactive removal of a child or to justify a subsequent removal.

g) The agenda may involve a vindictive attitude against a parent or social engineering bent designed to put the children with more suitable caregivers, (as with the removal of aboriginal children in BC and other provinces).

h) If the initial allegation of abuse proves empty, MCFD will stretch other matters in order to come up with other problematic suggestions like neglect or lack of control.

This is inevitable and healthy

Time for another Global TV Story/ Part 362 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

This Global news story was first aired on May 19th, 2008. In it Zabeth and her little daughter are spending some valuable time together during a visitation. The Baynes' family physician, Dr. Patricia Blackshaw is interviewed and speaks highly of the Baynes as principled people and very good parents. Quotations from several medical experts are displayed and read to the viewer contesting the initial diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome. The Baynes have vehemently denied harming their child, and yet all three of their children were taken. This was a very inferior investigative job by MCFD employees. When the news story aired, much time had already passed since the children were removed from their parental home on October 22, 2007. Two more years have come and gone and the Baynes and thousands of supporters in this region and across Canada and in several countries are trusting that by January 2011, this entire family will be together and re-establishing themselves in their own home. Judge Thomas Crabtree has received the Baynes' lawyer's final rebuttal of Ministry counsel Finn Jensen's court case summation and will render a ruling within several weeks. During this past year, Zabeth became pregnant with their fourth child. She is into her sixth month. And the primary social workers in this case are now trying to involve themselves in this yet unborn child's life. This is the stuff that makes the thousands of people suspicious and condemning of a Ministry that is mandated to care and to help. This is far beyond propriety by this regional MCFD staff. This is malicious tampering and interference. Right-minded people everywhere say this has gone on long enough. Judge Crabtree must instruct MCFD to get out of the Baynes' lives. 

UPDATE: IN COURT TODAY

Today's brief 9:15 am appearance in court was for the purpose of insuring that both parties, MCFD and Baynes were satisfied that all material had been adequately presented to the Court and then Judge Crabtree repeated as earlier timeline. He will take from 8-12 weeks to produce his ruling. He said he understands the urgency for all people involved and as soon as it is completed he will notify both parties and a determination will be made as to delivery of the ruling by letter or by a scheduled court appearance.

SOCIAL WORKER FALLIBILITY / Part 361 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The public is disgusted when a child dies at the hands of the child's own parents. So, policies and preventative actions against abuse to children is unquestionably necessary within our society. Then the public is understandably distressed when a child dies while in government care and the public is justified in demanding an inquiry to check the quality of help provided. And family members who have lost such a child first to the Ministry and then to death are destroyed inside and angrier than most of us can imagine. At coherent moments, social workers and the general public need a clear understanding of the distinction between avoidable and unavoidable mistakes in child protection work. However, a child's death is not proof that any professional was incompetent. Our limited knowledge and the complexity of assessing risk mean that professionals can only make the best judgement on the available evidence.

From what I have learned there is a persistent error. Social workers are slow to revise their judgements. Research indicates that this error is widespread and by no means peculiar to social workers but it means that misjudgements about clients that may have been unavoidable on the limited knowledge available when they were made, continue to be accepted despite a growing body of evidence against them. That is what I have observed to have happened in the case of the workers associated with Paul and Zabeth Bayne. That's simply my opinion. When social workers pay attention to a couple of collateral call-ins but don't bother to read the hundreds of letters of support for the parents from people who know them, and when the legal counsel dismisses the collection of correspondence on technicalities, it is perceived as a determination to refuse to allow a mind change. When a dozen medical experts review a child's files containing the information that was prepared by the examining medical team and arrive at contradicting conclusions for plausible reasons and when the original diagnosis is shown to be one that can be mimicked by other causes yet this is quickly dismissed, then one tends to believe there is an unwillingness to change one's mind about the parents. When for three years there is every indication of model behaviour, clean conduct, good life habits and values, hard work, rationality, peaceableness and polite interaction, and this does nothing to dissuade social workers from a negative assessment, it is justifiable to think that a rigidity is in place which does not serve families, children or parents well. Not this family or any family in the future.

If it can be broadly stated that social workers need a greater acceptance of their fallibility and a willingness to consider that their judgements and decisions are wrong, that is certainly true of those who have worked to bring these parents through three years of childlessness. To change your mind in the light of new information is a sign of good practice, a sign of strength not weakness.

Connections and Comparisons/ Part 360 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

MCFD Connections and Comparisons with the Criminal Justice System

This page demonstrates the links and comparisons between the MCFD/Family Court System and the Criminal Justice and Provincial Court System and in particular the investigation practices.

Connections with the Police and Criminal Justice System

1. Many parents are suspected by MCFD of abuse of children but investigation by the police finds no reasonable grounds for continuing the investigation. However MCFD still treats the parent as if he or she is guilty of an alleged offence or minimally of being an unsafe parent and therefore subjects the parent to supervised access and other limitations which are tantamount to a sentence without trial.

2. Some parents are actually charged with an offence such as assault on a child but charges are subsequently dropped or if tried, are acquitted in the Provincial Court. In such cases, MCFD may still treat the parents as guilty or unsafe and continue to malign their character and competency in Custody/Care Court hearings. Every avenue is pursued by MCFD to prevent a previously acquitted parent from securing the return of a child.

Comparisons between the two Court systems

Both Criminal and Provincial/MCFD/Family Courts have an adversarial approach in that the frequently displayed primary motive is to win the case. Upholding truth and justice appears to be of secondary importance. It might be said that justice is a power game to be won or lost. The objective seems not the discovery of the truth but rather to case win. However, in the absence of truth there is no justice.

1. The Criminal Court, while adversarial, is typically open to the public and media to insure that justice is witnessed and affected, whereas the MCFD/Provincial/Family Court is often concealed.

2. The MCFD/Family Court system tends to be far less accountable than the Criminal Court, having a pervasive secrecy and privacy which tends to conceal practices which may be unprofessional. The MCFD/Provincial Court while technically open, permits few non-family supporters to attend defended hearings and the media is typically excluded.

3. In the Criminal Court a conviction must meet the burden of proof which is guilt beyond reasonable doubt while in the MCFD/Family Court a ruling is determined on the balance of probabilities which is a much lower standard.

4. The 'Child, Family and Community Services Act' for the sake of child protection, allows procedures and actions by social workers and police which would be fundamental breaches of human rights if conducted for any other purposes. Parental rights and responsibilities and children’s needs and wishes are often frequently disregarded when a child has not been harmed but is considered likely to be at risk and therefore is removed, often with force (police). Stated another way, freedom to live as a family unit has been destroyed when no parent has actually committed any crime.

WHAT WILL THESE CHILDREN BECOME? / Part 359 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Sample children, ready to achieve their dreams - carefree & happy

These three children, the three about whom I have been writing for over one year, the three children who were born to Paul and Zabeth Bayne will be engaged in the future of our country. In some way they will find a place. They will be educated. They will love and be loved. They will choose careers. They will perhaps make a significant and positive mark on a community in this country.

Their formative years are far from exhausted quite yet. The truth is that three of those years have been squandered in unnecessary disorder, bewildering confusion as a matter of fact. Even the two boys, the eldest of the three siblings hardly know what normalcy is. Or at least the definition for normality has been written by a government agency that flipped them around for a while into different foster homes. The little boys into whose lives their sister had come only briefly when they were almost too small to understand, and then she left (was taken) when she was only weeks old, didn't see her again until this past year when she joined them in one foster home. There is still time for their lives to be shaped well, influenced effectively, nurtured lovingly.

How can immature minds cope with this invasion of life and of memory development? How do they process living in one place most of the week and visiting mommy and daddy twice per week? Do they differentiate the affections they must surely have for both foster care givers and mommy and daddy? As they go to school, do they experience thoughts and feelings of being different from other children?

A boy who was three years old, is now six. A girl who was weeks old, is now three years of age. And all the while Paul and Zabeth have grown ever more stoic. I watched the emotion pour from them in year one and year two. They wept. They still do cry but what you see most of the time is a determination not to be crippled emotionally by a government agency that has completely lost its way in this case. Sure this is merely one region of the Ministry of Children but similar cases are occurring elsewhere.

These young lives will be shaped well, influenced effectively and nurtured lovingly in their own parental home with their mommy and daddy. That is the way it must be. A prudent MCFD regional staff would see that and advocate that. It would relinquish this commitment to an irresponsible risk assessment, would acknowledge the quality character of these two parents, would surrender the control of these children's lives to these parents and let them get on with the business of living and growing up and being happy. This is not too much to ask. It is simply too much to expect from this outfit that has pressed this matter all the way to a court decision three years after the presenting incident.

What will these children become?

Foster Parent and a Foster Child / Part 358 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The next quotation of a child's comment comes from Tuesday's post, called 'Listen to the Children.'  “Can we stay now?” A small child's earnest request to remain with birth parents from whom he has been separated for half his life is without any agenda other than personal satisfaction of the heart.

It is not a child's comment on the care received within the foster home. It is not a child's comment about foster parents. It is not a child's statement that affirms or denies appreciation for what a foster parent has done for the child. It is simply a child's stated desire.

Foster parents motivated to care for children who are temporarily in need of a place to stay and in which to have their daily needs met, and to provide some sense of stability and affection are to be commended. I have said this before. Never having offered this service myself, I am unsure how you foster folk maintain the necessary objectivity to remain emotionally unattached to the child. Of course it helps if you already have children of your own. You do not require or want the additional permanent responsibility of someone else's child or children. This is a temporary service you do. Most foster parents understand perfectly, their roles and functions. They are foster, surrogate and alternate and are interim, impermanent and want it that way.

Yet, can a foster parent become attached emotionally to an infant or a small child in one's care? I can believe that this happens.

The foster parents of the Bayne children did not initiate this question or this blog post, nor did the birth parents. This is entirely detached from them. The ideas arose elsewhere in a rather general discussion rather than case specific. Could a foster parent become jealous of the affection of a child shown to the biological parents – an affection demonstrated by a simple statement such as, “Can we stay now?” Would that be an awkward and somewhat troublesome tug of war. Would that influence a foster parent's care program? Would it affect how a foster parent treated the child, spoke to the child? Would a foster parent attempt to win the child's affection somehow? Could a foster parent regard birth parents as rivals? How does a foster parent show care with affection and then successfully shut that down because their task is completed? I said in an earlier post that there are 16,000 children annually in BC who live for some time outside their parents' homes. The issues must therefore be handled many times by foster parents in this province.

I have to say, I never thought of these things, certainly not when I wrote the piece entitled “Listen to the Children.” It was merely a means to convey that a child has something to say about the way he wants his life to unfold. He should be heard.

LEADERSHIP, CRITICISM, APPRECIATION / Part 357 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

I was headed from an early age in a direction I do not believe I preferred for myself. There were childhood signs and indicators in my youth that I would give leadership. I have been in leadership roles most of my life, certainly all of my adult life. That expression of my identity struggled with the creative side of me that required solitude, privacy and peace. In leadership I learned soon that criticism from others is part of the territory and I tolerated it. People with legitimate beefs I would hear and would work for solution but there was a time or two I almost chucked my responsibilities in the face of cranky, fractious people.

That's my preface to a comment that is sure to raise a few temperatures among my readers.

Here is my comment: THE MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS NECESSARY AND IT MEETS MANY SOCIAL NEEDS WITHIN OUR SOCIETY OF CHILDREN, YOUTH, FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES.

I need to say that. Complaints lodged against the Ministry of Children and Family Development run like a river on this blog site. It seems that I am perpetually ragging on MCFD as are commentators to my posts. It could be assumed that I am shortsighted and cannot see the commendable vision and achievements of MCFD work. Yet the accent placed on my daily posts is understandable since the origin for our collective dissatisfaction with MCFD is its child protection policy and practice. So, given my advocacy for Paul and Zabeth Bayne and my study of child protection, what more can be expected? My capitalized comment above strikes a balance that should place in a proper light the strong sentiments expressed by this blog.

Let's start with the new Ministry Plan. MCFD has its own marketing specialists so without serving to promote MCFD let me comment on the Ministry Plan for 2010-2013 presented under Honourable Mary Polak's signature.

It is valuable for discussion and negotiation purposes somewhere down the road, to recognize that during the past three years at least some fresh direction has been afforded to the ministry of CFD. That is what we are told. Listen to Ms. Polak's own words on page 3 of the report of the Service Plan 2010/11 – 2012/13. http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2010/sp/pdf/ministry/cfd.pdf

“This service plan represents a mid-way point in the organizational transformation that is driven by significant shifts in our vision and direction.... The Ministry of Children and Family Development 2010/11 – 2012/13 Service Plan was prepared under my direction, in accordance with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.... Over the past three years we have been moving away from a service delivery model sometimes viewed as reactionary toward a proactive approach founded upon five core pillars that recognize and build on the strengths inherent in all children and families.”

“This philosophy is embodied in Strong, Safe and Supported: A Commitment to B.C.’s Children and Youth — the Ministry’s action plan that guides our work and our decisions. With an emphasis on prevention and early intervention, the five pillars contained in the action plan are based on a holistic approach to planning and delivering services and the best possible outcomes for children and families. We are focused on helping to build healthy families through early childhood development, quality child care, supports for children and youth with special needs, services for youth and support services for families. We are also focused on supporting an Aboriginal approach that is more inclusive and reflective of Aboriginal cultures and traditions.”

Here comes the judge – You!

Gordon Campbell Steps Down

A surprise to most of us today may mean a change of other key Ministry roles within months.

Video

• B.C. premier steps down Gordon Campbell announces his plans to step down as premier of British Columbia Watch: 4:12
  
  Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/11/03/bc-premier-gordon-campbell.html#ixzz14G4w312f

CHILDREN'S COMPLAINT RESOLUTION / Part 356 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

There are other children who must be heard and not merely the three Bayne children for whom I advocate a return to their birth family home.

Are you aware that almost 16,000 BC children live outside their family homes at any given time each year? They are children from infancy to age of majority. Some will be more expressive and language proficient than others but all should be heard if they have something to say and particularly if they have a complaint that requires resolution. If they are receiving services from our government then they should have opportunity to express concerns and receive responses appropriate in time and in kind. In his 2006 review of B.C.’s child protection system, Mr. Hughes recommended that MCFD have a complaint system that young people would find accessible, easy to use and would provide a timely response. And they need to be informed that they have this option. As a responsible guardian the government must listen and must make considerate decisions that reflect to a child that he or she has been heard. They must be told that there is a process for complaint and resolution or it will never work.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development regional operations and B.C. delegated Aboriginal Agencies purportedly have a complaint resolution process for children in care but according to a review conducted by the B.C. Representative for Children and Youth (the Representative) and the B.C. Ombudsperson, many children have never known about this process. This special review used a child-centered framework to examine the complaint resolution process of the MCFD regional operations and of B.C. delegated Aboriginal Agencies and the review was delivered in January 2010. The review clarifies that a responsive child-centered complaint resolution process must have the key elements of awareness, accessibility and timeliness and all those points were examined in this review.

One of the conclusions was “Children and youth have a right to voice complaints about services and the care they are receiving. They deserve a complaint resolution process that hears the voice of children, demonstrates commitment to young people, contributes to better individual outcomes and improves services overall for children, youth and their families.”

Hearing the Voices of Children and Youth: A Child-Centered Approach to Complaint Resolution

In this report, Representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond and Ombudsperson Kim Carter identify seven ways for the Ministry of Children and Family Development to make its complaint process more accessible and responsive to the vulnerable young people it serves.

To view the full report, click here.
To view the summary report, click here.
To view the video, click here.
To view the news release, click here.