FAMILY AUTONOMY IN LIGHT OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS (part 2 of 3)

Are ‘human freedom’ and ‘human dignity,’ values that we want to preserve here in Canada? Do I hear a unanimous and audacious “YES!” Do we want to preserved them here in British Columbia?

If so, then why? I can venture an answer. Because among other benefits that family autonomy achieves for us in a free society, are diversity, variety, and multiplicity. Don’t tell me that these are not important to us, to you. Few of us are enchanted by sameness.

A BRITISH COLUMBIA CHILD WELFARE MYTH

The rights and best interests of children. 

In British Columbia, children have certain rights. They have a right to be made safe in their own homes or in alternative care. Right? When in care they have the following rights.
They have a right to continuity and stability of care. Right?
They have a right to be placed with relatives and to continuing kinship contact. Right?
Young children have a right to timely resolution of their cases. Right?
This means not being left long in damaging limbo. Right?
They have a right to privacy. Right?
They have a right to the protection of the courts from unwarranted removal. Right?
The ministry director has the responsibility to prove his case. Right?
Parents have a right to protect their own children. Right? Wrong on all counts because in practice they get none of these rights.

CIVIL RIGHT & AYN VAN DYK

Civil or human or political rights are rights which rest upon the premise of birthright into a polity or state or society. Conceptually, one’s birth must ensure that a person is a citizen who can fully participate in the civil and political life of that state without experiencing discrimination or repression. Neither government or organizations or individuals must be permitted to infringe upon those basic human rights.

THE SECRET SHAME - A BIT MORE / 537

Tim Korol, "The Secret Shame" - CBC photo

Yesterday I wrote about Tim Korol’s written report called “The Secret Shame.” That was a month of May story. Korol, back in December 2010 went public with his criticisms of the Social Services of Saskatchewan for which he served as an assistant deputy minister. He had 16 years experience as a Saskatoon policeman and 10 years experience with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission before being hired to provide advice to the province’s child welfare system with regard to family interventions and placement of children in foster homes.

What he experienced was resistance to his recommended and required changes because he was deemed an outsider. 

OBSCENITY / Part 401 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

What has been done to Zabeth and Paul Bayne is disgustingly abhorrent. It's obscene.

Alright, some readers, particularly those who have experienced the horrific removal of their children for brief or lengthy periods of time, have not been pleased with my occasional portrayal of the well intentioned service side of social work and child welfare. I have been fair and balanced. There is good that is accomplished. Enough!

Enough! Social workers, some of your colleagues and supervisors are out of control. Their ethical compasses are broken. They have abandoned their heart for the work and relied upon the letter of the law. They treat people as files upon which the drawer can be closed at will, rather than human beings with faces and entire lives. They ignore the comprehensive impact their actions are having and will have upon people's futures. Happiness, hopes and dreams get shattered irreparably by the decisions of parties outside the family circle. Best interests are confused.

What is being done to Zabeth and Paul Bayne is disgustingly abhorrent. It's offensive, detestable. I don't care whether the argument is, “Well, it's our job,” or “We are mandated to insure the safety of the child.” How much insensitivity, inhumanity, can be demonstrated by one chapter of MCFD against one family?

For over three years with some very notable abusive events this couple against whom there has never been any evidence, but solely on the basis of suspicion and reprisal, have endured a degree of scrutiny and humiliation and intimidation that cries out like a human rights violation story. Now, while a court case initiated by the MCFD to remove their three children forever is still pending a judicial ruling, a mother and her unborn fourth child are being subjected to indecent threats and stress. Indecent I say, because presented as genuine interest in the welfare of a child that has not yet been born, proffering hypothetical, unspecified and unnecessary services to the parents for the new child when it arrives, there are cloaked threatening terms that become menacingly dangerous to a women whose pregnancies are historically fragile. That's what is taking place. “If you don't meet with us to talk about our involvement with you and your new child, then....”

Prematurity has characterized the other three births. MCFD knows this. The Director knows this. Mom has been ordered to remove and reduce stress from her life. She is only weeks away from her due date, and can you imagine what it must be like to put your head on the pillow each night with a frightful vision of social workers removing the baby from you at the hospital?

That's what's going on here! Somebody, make it stop! God, make this stop!