MCFD IS IN UNRESOLVED CRISIS MODE

'Broken Dreams', Murray Unruh, glass & acrylic

UNRESOLVED CRISIS

MCFD IS IN UNRESOLVED CRISIS MODE

In spite of inquiries and recommendations, changing governments, legislative reforms and in-house restructuring that the MCFD calls transformation, this child welfare system in B.C. has failed generations of both children and parents. British Columbia’s child welfare system has been in crisis for decades and it still is. Hon. Mary McNeil can only address the predicament if she consults and understands the history of this Ministry in B.C., acknowledges the existing problems, and agrees that changes are required and can be affected.

DR. BOWDEN AND WHAT PEOPLE SAY / 515

Unidentified mom and child

Parenting Capacity Assessment (PCA) PCA’s are conducted for the purpose of identifying the functional parenting ability of a potential caregiver or active caregiver. PCA’s also identify parenting limitations and possible remediation that may assist an individual in acquiring the skills necessary for effective parenting. PCA’s are usually conducted under Court Order or in respect to child welfare concerns.

You already know that Paul and Zabeth Bayne are engaged with Dr. Conrad Bowden in a Parental Capacity Assessment. I wrote a small bit about this earlier and have been impressed with material produced by Dr. Bowden. Candidly I wonder how the Baynes will find this experience to be.

Random Selection from Your Comments / Part 296 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Random Selection from Your Comments: Scores of people have added personal comments to blog posts over the past weeks. Here are a few from recent days.

1. "This was not just about a protection hearing, Doug Christie put the ministry on trial and exposed its shoddy tactics and blundering incompetence for the world to see in an open court.

2. September 21st, 2010 has been set for Finn Jensen to sum up the case for the MCFD. All day.

3. Doug Christie made a succinct, articulate and convincing summation in one hour. Finn Jensen's insistence of having a full day for his summation shows his or MCFD's desperation.

4. The similarities between the Bayne case and ours in Ontario is amazing and on Sept 21, 2009 ours concluded with the return of our children.

5. Fighting for parental rights must become fashionable because of mismanagement of child protective services.

6. My experience is that "services" provided by MCFD are used to acquire more evidence that can be used against the parents to deprive them of parental rights.

7. It is crucial that we recognize child protection corruption to put a stop to more children and families being victims of an awful tyranny.

8. We must return to very simple laws dedicated to helping children truly in need or travesties of Justice will continue in the name of Child Protection.

9. I have seen children removed because parents rent a flea infested condo, or children went to school appearing sad or have a rash, or parents disagree with positions of a SW.

10. As long as a group of people are given such enormous God-like power - that is, the power to take a child from his parents with virtually no accountability, then there will be wrongful removals.

11. Help children who need help, i.e. if there are actual signs of abuse, do an investigation, then charge the perpetrator criminally.

12. Don't permit social workers to yank kids away from their family on the basis of some bogus subjective "neglect" accusation.

13. To revoke sweeping child removal authority does not compromise child protection but rather directs such a measure to truly vulnerable children.

14. Many Canadians, children included, have good reasons not to trust government, largely because of the government's damaging role in their lives.

15. Integral to the job of investigative social workers is use of surveillance and inquiry.

16. Some MCFD employees who read the blog must be dismayed by the Bayne case and we would benefit to hear from them, even if anonymously."

DOES MCFD SPY ON PEOPLE? / Part 269 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

This anonymous comment was written this morning in response to a challenge issued to another commenter named CW with regard to a comment under the Part 211 entry of June 7, 2010 1:58 PM. It is assumed that CW is a social worker presently employed somewhere in the MCFD system. It revisits the subject of MCFD Launched Surveillance of Parents.

Anonymous wrote this:
“CW, I have given you almost two months to seek confirmation from your superior whether MCFD mounts surveillance on parents under scrutiny. You refused and alleged that you can only speak for the Fraser Valley Region (see your posting on June 16, 2010 in Part 222), hence setting up a stage for your sweet double talk once I prove my case.

I have accepted your unilaterally imposed rules of engagement like not relying on PAPA’s surveillance page and information or video from outside British Columbia. Since you refused to provide the confirmation I seek, I will not provide the evidence to prove my case. You are quite right that I have evidence, but I am not itchy. Rest assured that evidence against such intrusive and other hideous activities will be made public in a platform that your Ministry will find much harder to deal with at a time of my choice.

You tactfully raised the following issues that render MCFD mounted surveillance on oppressed parents seemingly impossible:
1. after hours support services may be the province-wide Children's Helpline (your comment sent on June 7, 2010 1:58 PM in June 6, 2010 Part 211);
2. there is no budget in conducting surveillance (same as above);
3. Mr. Ray Ferris stated clearly that MCFD does not use "spies" (your comment sent on June 7, 2010 10:52 PM in June 6, 2010 Part 211)

For the benefit of scrutinized families and the advance of knowledge on MCFD activities, I affirm that MCFD does mount surveillance. They do not put up surveillance in every case and only do this if there is incriminating evidence to gain. For instance, surveillance is often mounted when there is a supervision order prohibiting unauthorized contact of one parent with children who must leave his/her family home to exchange for return of children under the custody of the other parent. If there is no surveillance mounted as CW alleged, then MCFD is not doing its to protect children by not policing the supervision order. Be at ease, damage control. In fact, they often send their undercover agents to stalk parents and stake out residence in the aforesaid scenario.

Although I am not going to provide tangible evidence, I will respond to the above allegations that CW had shrewdly alleged to mislead people:
1. After hours support service constituted 45.7% of total child removal costs, which amounts to $6,917,931 in 2007/08 (data source: Freedom of Information application). Is it likely that a 24-hour phone line cost almost $7 millions per year to run? No. After hour “service” mainly comprises of MCFD agents who remove children and respond to “child protection” calls after hours. I have seen them on fishing expedition outside family homes hunting for reasons to re-remove children even after midnight.
2. It is true that there is no account in MCFD’s budget to support surveillance activity. If you read their budget carefully, there is no account for their legal expenses as well. MCFD lawyers do not provide pro bono services. Likewise, no surveillance budget does not mean that they don’t mount surveillance. MCFD’s legal expenses are in the Attorney General’s budget. As for surveillance, I would direct readers to read the Consolidated Revenue Fund Extracts (Unaudited).
Starting from page 141 of this 402-page document, there are many individuals and number companies received over $25,000 from MCFD for unspecified reasons. Like foster parents, some of these surveillance agents may not be government employees and are third parties hired by CP SW. One of the duties of SW is to authorize expenditures for support services (read MCFD SW job description page 1 of job store # 174 posted in June 2010). Be mindful that payment recipients receiving less than $25,000 in a fiscal year are not listed in this document. God knows which and how many of these recipients provide surveillance service.
3. I do not recognize that Mr. Ray Ferris, an ex-service provider, is authoritative. Nor do I believe that his solutions will solve problems created by state-sponsored child removal. Although I appreciate his effort to unveil the corruption by writing extensively on “child protection” issues, he has told me nothing new so far. Mr. Ferris can speak critically now because he had retired. If he did this while he was still employed, he would have been fired. CW is banking on the trust that many bloggers have on Mr. Ferris. His disbelief on the surveillance issue does not mean that it does not exist.

In today’s blog,* Mr. Ferris suggested that abuse will continue if social work professors, B.C. Association of Social Workers and MLA don’t speak up. MCFD’s SW need not to register with the British Columbia College of Social Workers (Mr. Ferris erred on the name of the College). What does this has to do with the College? I guarantee that this sort of abuse will continue if government still retains the power to remove children from parents. (*A Ferris post appeared briefly today. Recovery later).

These allegations even fool oppressed parents who have not experienced MCFD mounted surveillance. This ministry can compel teens to do penile sex tests and kept it well hidden for decades. What else they are not capable of doing?

PS: Regarding your remark “teachers are not MCFD watchdogs”. Indeed, every person in the province is obliged by law to be MCFD watchdog and the entire province is their hunting ground. Listing teachers only as MCFD watchdog understates the witch hunt network."

SUSTAINING THE FAMILY'S PLACE / Part 243 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

On this blog site most observers familiar with the Ministry of Children and Family Development agree that the child protection activities are in crisis. MCFD knows how to seize children. MCFD doesn't want to know how and when to give them back. Parents and social workers alike agree that too many children remain in foster care for too long. Most people who pay attention to child welfare in British Columbia, concur with this viewpoint and complain for good reason.

While I dedicated this blog for the past nine months to advocating on behalf of Paul and Zabeth Bayne and their three children, all of you have been making it amply clear to all readers that the Baynes are only a sampling of the families who cry at night in separate living quarters. The Bayne children exemplify the thousands of children confused by their changed life situations. They wonder with fear about their families, their futures and their parents' love.

None of us disagree that aggressive measures are required to protect children from parental abuse and neglect. But here is the thing. Many broken families are bearing the evidence that there is an aggressive default protection policy operative within MCFD that removes children from their biological families and places them for adoption. Does anyone else in the real world think that this is an appropriate solution for the children who may be at risk in their homes? Child Welfare within this province must be pressured to reduce reliance on out-of-home care for children so that their own families may successfully raise them. I have become persuaded that MCFD is unjustifiably dismissive of the potential for preserving and restoring families when the appropriate resources are made available. Would not our society prefer to see resources poured into helping parents and children remain as families rather than pouring that money into foster care provisions with all the spinoff ramifications. As long as we are silent about our Child welfare system that is philosophically committed to removing children and retaining children without investing hope into the minds, hearts and lives of parents who are now appalled by grief and powerless to regain their parental rights, we aid and abet an inhuman treatment of our fellow citizens. News agencies, please pay attention here.

Oh its not my problem!

That's how we rationalize it, some of us.

And if our political representatives and legislators similarly leave the office each day to go home feeling that children victimized by a child welfare system gone awry is not their problem, we will talk idly about this into the next decade.

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 64 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

Press the link in the title below and listen for 90 seconds to this greeting.
Holiday Message from Minister Mary Polak - Province of British Columbia



I heard this as a courteous and friendly seasonal greeting from an elected official who is seeking sincerely to accomplish her mandate within one of the most complex ministry portfolios. In her comments I picked up on one emphasis that marks for me the missing ingredient in the MCFD operational philosophy. Her Christmas greeting is specially directed in her conclusion, to Foster families and Adoptive families where children are treated as their own. Constantly I am grieved for the birth parents whose children have been removed from their homes whether for reasons with evidentiary support or for reasons of concern and suspicion. Where is a greeting to them? I have tried to listen and read best wishes extended to them by anyone in authority and I can't find anything.

Take a greeting from me. I extend to all parents whose children have been removed from their homes by child protection agencies, and who are grieving the absence of those children and finding it difficult to navigate through this Christmas season without a complete emotional breakdown, a serene, pleasant and positive Christmas. Please include a consideration of the birth of Jesus Christ as the Prince of Peace. May God's peace settle over you and your home.