ASSESSING SOCIAL WORKERS

In tribute to Ray Ferris I will be re-posting some of his insightful and helpful articles. 

BASIC PRINCIPLES BY WHICH TO ASSESS SOCIAL WORKERS by Ray Ferris

If you want to assess the social workers properly then you need to go back to basic principles. This is what I always start off with and when you do that the matters usually become quite clear. The basic mandate of child protection is to ensure that a child can be made safe at home, or in alternative care. This principle is firmly embodied in the CF&CSA and there are many admonitions to extend help to parents in making sure their children are protected. If we look at what happened to Derek Hoare in the light of these principles, we can quickly see that the director was in dire dereliction of his duty.  

THE BASIC MANDATE OF CHILDREN PROTECTION

Ayn climbed a fence and was missing for a short while, they rushed in to remove her. There can be no doubt that she was at a small risk for an hour or two. This was unforeseeable and could just as easily happen in a foster home. It was in no way due to negligent or irresponsible parenting. 

What the social worker should have done is to sit down with the father and do an in-depth assessment as to what help could be given to make the home safer. It was a simple physical situation. They could have helped him to build a higher fence and they could have offered him some relief help. Something practical. He did not need a psychic re-tread. 

They would have had to spend some money, but not nearly as much as they are spending in the foster home. It has been almost two full years to date. Thousands of dollars to make sure Ayn developed anxiety disorders and a feeling of abandonment.

The ignorance and stupidity exhibited was so severe that it certainly makes one think of malice. Among all the people involved, did not one of them know about attachment deficit disorders, or the mandate to offer assistance? It makes one wonder about malice.

Derek is dad to three children, two of whom live with Autism. He was primary caregiver. One afternoon his autistic daughter Ayn climbed over a backyard fence. When he noticed he called 911 and Ayn was missing for two hours until police found her in a neighbour’s yard. Ayn was seized by child protection and what could have been settled amicably and wisely, turned into a travesty lasting 3 years. Yes, 3 yrs.

----------------------------------

Ray passed away on Dec. 4, 2019 at the age of 90. After a career in civil service in the care and protection of children, Ray retired and championed the rights of children, parents and foster parents who were challenged by government policies and practice. He was generous with counsel to lawyers, MLAs and advocates. He wrote the book, ‘The Art of Child Protection,’ a practical guide for social workers to make best decisions in the interest of children. In the following days, the posts will be material written by Ray Ferris that appeared in my GPS site.

METIS CHILD - JUDGE RULES TOMORROW SEPT 26 - RAY FERRIS SPEAKS OUT, AGAIN!

Ray Ferris has been invested in this case as most advocated spirits are. It’s the case of the Metis child whom MCFD wants to ship from a BC Metis foster parent home to a non-aboriginal home in Ontario because there are two siblings earlier sent there. He has written another piece and sent it to me today. 

(Photo:Mike McArthur/CBC)

"The Metis foster parents spent two days in court last week in Vancouver Supreme Court. Jack Hittrich, their lawyer applied for leave to approach the Supreme Court of Canada on a Charter of Rights application protecting the aboriginal heritage. Of course the MCF director is fighting that tooth and nail and has shown the customary nasty and vindictive behaviour that we have come to expect from the office. There is a publication ban on the case, so you may see nothing in the media. The judge expects to rule tomorrow, Monday Sept 26th. 

RECAP OF JUDGE WALKER'S LANDMARK RULING AGAINST THE MINISTRY OF CHILDREN IN 2015

My GPS weblog covered in 6 parts the momentous litigation between a mother known as J.P. versus the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development. She sued MCFD and won in July 2015.  Hers was a case in which her children were removed from her and given into the care of her husband whom it was alleged had sexually abused them. Justice Paul Walker not only condemned the Ministry but awarded the custody of the children to their mother. Here follows my synopsized version of Judge Walker's 140-page judgement.

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 1 of 6 - Strickland and Tymkow

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 2 of 6 - Closed Minds

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 3 of 6 - Unsupervised Access

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 4 of 6 - First Trial

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 5 of 6 - Trial Two

Walker's SCATHING INDICTMENT - Part 6 of 6 - More Findings

Additional to the 6 part analysis of Judge Walker's ruling, two GPS blog posts comment further to GPS: JUDGE WALKER'S DECISION AGAINST THE MINISTRY OF MCFD … News sources jumped on this story that Judge Paul Walker ruled that the Ministry failed to protect children from sexual abuse by their father, … and GPS: JUSTICE PAUL WALKER STUNNING JUDGEMENT concerns the shock waves caused by the ruling.

As stunning and scathing as it was, the B.C. government has appealed the judgement. It also assigned Bob Plecas to do an independent review. He completed and published that report before year end again MCFD is judged wanting in some areas. Read Plecas' full report here.

A CBC News report headlined the report this way. B.C. child protection system slammed for lack of accountability, leadership, funding - British Columbia - CBC News

The Appeal results are still pending and so is compensation for JP.

RESOLVING SYSTEMIC AND NON-SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS IN CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES, Part 9

By Ray Ferris (This piece is one of a series Ray will write here.)

ACCESS
The ministry seems to have no clear concept about what access is appropriate and what is not. The Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies does have guidelines and these are vastly different from what is practised in British Columbia. There seems to be no differentiation from case to case as to when close supervision of access is needed and when unsupervised access would seem more appropriate. The rationale appears to be that any protection action means that there is risk to a child and therefore there would be dire risk if unsupervised access were allowed. This is not rational. If the director is seeking a continuing care order, then this is a reasonable assumption and it might well be argued that access should not be allowed at all to parents who are so hopelessly unfit as to merit permanent loss of their children.

However, shall we say that due notice has been served on the parents that a temporary order only is sought and the plan on the presentation report was to return the children, then access should be supportive of such a plan. Every person who has had children in care, even for fairly short periods reports the same sort of thing. Any visits are tightly supervised and every word and gesture is tightly monitored, as if the parent would suddenly attack the child. This is so irrational that it strikes people as paranoid. When parents have no history of child abuse, but perhaps it is a case of borderline neglect, there is no reason to waste public money on such over-caution.

The Ontario guidelines also advise social workers to arrange all access visits to be in the family home whether supervised or not. This is to keep the children in touch with familiar things and to lessen their anxiety. I have had hundreds of foster children under the care of my staff and me. We seldom found it necessary to supervise visiting. When parents were able to pick up their children at the foster home and take them out for the day, it gave us good opportunities to evaluate the progress of the parent. If parents were consistent and reliable, it became positive evidence. I would introduce the parent to the foster parent first and our foster parents were often good mentors for the natural parent. If a supervised visit became necessary, I preferred to do it myself, so that I could evaluate the situation first hand.

The systemic change would be to draw up clear guidelines on visiting and to make it part of core training for protection workers. Old staff should be retrained on this matter. Such a device would save a great deal of money.

Ferris retired after a career that included significant years with the MCFD. He has written a book entitled 'The Art of Child Protection.' This is the first in a series of pieces Ray will write here. You can order Mr. Ferris' book entitled 'the Art of Child Protection' by contacting the author directly at rtferris@telus.net.

RESOLVING SYSTEMIC AND NON-SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS IN CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES, Part 7

By Ray Ferris (This piece is one of a series Ray will write here.)

MEDIATION

courtesy www.pa-pa.ca

Mediation is another problem area that needs to be considered. Prior to the enactment of the CF&CSA, discussion, negotiation and mediation were considered to be social work skills. Supervisors would sometimes need to mediate disputes between social workers and clients and this was a much-needed supervisory skill. Mediation is usually most successful when there is no great power differential between the parties. It must also be completely voluntary on both sides.

The legislated mediation often fails for various reasons. First, there is a huge power imbalance between the parent and the social worker. The mediation often takes place when the children have already entered care, and so the parties are already in an adversarial situation. So much so, that some parents feel they need their lawyer present at mediation---even at $2,500 at a time.

PARENTAL CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS (2nd part of 2 parts)

Parental Capacity assessments (2nd of 2 parts)

Written by Ray Ferris. Ray Ferris is a retired child-protection worker and the author of The Art of Child Protection and occasional contributor to this GPS blog.

Let me tell you about a recent case in Victoria family court. A parental capacity assessment was done under contract to the director. This document completely dominated all the judge’s decisions. The PCA was full of serious flaws and I list them below.

1. The psychologist took five months to do the report, claiming it was necessary to read thousands of pages of legal documents. He did no such thing. He read reams of ministry records that he had no business doing because it made him clearly partial and he is supposed to be impartial.

2. He stated he followed standard guidelines, but he failed to state whose guidelines.

3. He stated he was an expert witness before the court. He was not. An expert witness has to be qualified at a court hearing and his expertise can be challenged. His testimony has to stand up to examination and cross-examination under due process.

4. Under section 64 (2) b of the CF&CSA the judge may consider any written submission or documents he considers relevant. So legally a PCA has no more standing than say a school report or a letter of support for a parent.

5. In soliciting input from other professionals such as psychologists and registered counsellors he misrepresented himself. He said he was doing a court ordered assessment. He was under contract to the director.

6.Because of this misrepresentation others felt obliged to share information, which they would otherwise not have done. One of them stated that had he known, he would have not considered him to be impartial and would have been reluctant to help him. ( In one Vancouver case, the judge did not trust the PCA ordered by the ministry, nor the one contracted by the parent and so he ordered his own to be done. Speaks for itself. )

7. The parent sent relevant sections of the PCA to all the professionals who were quoted. They all provided letters confirming that he had misrepresented himself and made a number of changes to their information so that it was skewed in favour of the director. Some of them specifically asked him if he was audio recording the telephone interviews He said he was not, so they took careful notes of what they said. He presented their input as verbatim in his report and so misled the court.

Conclusion. I could go on, but that is enough for a blog. I write this for those readers who may be suffering from a surfeit of parental capacity assessments. I hope this information is of help to you in instructing your lawyers how to deal with these reports, because most lawyers swallow the psychobabble and do not know how to challenge it. Do not hesitate to contact me if you need help with this sort of problem, rtferris@telus.net

MEDIA INFORMATION CONCERNING THE NEED FOR CHANGE TO CHILD PROTECTION

Here is a media information sheet prepared by People Assisting Parents Association, or PAPA

It was specifically directed to media in view of a protest being held in Kamloops, B.C. by proponents of change to Child Protection services in B.C. and elsewhere in Canada. The specific subject is a woman named Velvet Martin, a significant voice for change.

Date: Thu, July 25, 2013 10:30 AM

I'm glad you have offered to do an interview covering this event.
The protest is a bit last minute and as such may not get a huge turnout, but regardless, the issues are important, but largely unknown by the general public.

Velvet Martin would be one of the "rock stars" of proponents of improving the state of families that have been targeted by child protection systems. Velvet was able to single handedly get "Samantha’s Law" passed in Alberta the name of her daughter who she was obligated to "sign over" to the Province's child protection system just to receive the care the government refused to provide if she did not do so. Other Provinces and U.S. States continue to contact her to find out how she managed that feat, because they also want similar legislation.