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.

WHEN AYN IS COMING HOME.

WHEN AYN IS COMING HOME.

THEY CAN’T TALK OR DON’T WANT TO TALK, OR DON’T KNOW.

They are not speaking about it.

Both Derek Hoare and Amie Van Dyk, biological parents of Ayn Van Dyk (she carries her mother’s surname), have not spoken about the delay.

Some months ago, pre-Christmas 2012, Derek updated us with glad information that consultation with the Ministry of Children assured him that with a graduated process and whatever protocol mechanisms MCFD deemed necessary, Ayn would be returned in the near future, early in the new year.

MOMMIE'S LATEST REPORT ON HER VISITS WITH AYN

Amie Van Dyk, Ayn's mom sees her regularly now and her recent March 24th update is an encouraging one. Ayn is the ten year old girl who was taken from her father's care in June 2011 and still remains the custody and care of the Ministry of Children in B.C. She is a girl with autism. YOU WILL WANT TO HEAR WHAT HER MOM SAYS SO PLEASE READ ON.

MOM AMIE'S ACCOUNT OF DAY VISIT WITH AYN

Taken Yesterday, Ayn in her mom Amie's home.

After one and one half years, Ayn Van Dyk, 10 year old daughter of Amie Van Dyk and Derek Hoare was permitted to have a day with her mom in her mom’s home. This is a significant advance and perhaps, a step in the road to return which has already been intimated to Derek and Amie by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. That day occurred yesterday, Wednesday, January 16, 2013. Amie wrote about her delight on The Facebook Page dedicatedto Ayn’s return to the care of her father. Her father has been the primary caregiver ever since Amie and Derek split up some years ago. Amie respects Derek’s care of Ayn and is in full agreement that his home is where Ayn needs to be. 

THE CHILDREN MAY SEE THEIR HOME / Part 326/ For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Yesterday, Friday, Judge Crabtree delivered his video conferenced ruling on the MCFD application to adjust the earlier court ordered three day visitation schedule of three hours each, to a schedule of one three hour visit plus a six hour visit on Saturday and this to accommodate the children's school life, extra curricular activities and appointments. There was more to this application but this was the primary item. Dear brave Zabeth, spoke on behalf of her husband and herself and her three children while the MCFD Director had his counsel Finn Jensen representing MCFD interests when they made their brief 30 minute presentations on Thursday afternoon.

On Friday Judge Crabtree told the Baynes and the MCFD representatives that he had reviewed both submissions with regard to the application. He made it clear that his ruling Friday is based solely upon those submissions on Thursday and unrelated to the general court hearing. His ruling on Friday was not based upon an any assessment of the court evidence to date. He wanted that understood. He is very aware that Mr. Jensen has another half day of summary on October 6^th and no decision on the CCO has been made until the summary concludes and the Bayne counsel writes a closing statement in response to the Jensen summary.

Judge Crabtree recognizes that his previous visitation order was based upon a summer schedule and that now during the school year there has been an increase in the children's activities as well as social engagements and medical appointments. He notes that MCFD identifies some behavioral issues with a couple of the children and he acknowledges that some of this is plainly the result of being removed from their home for such a long period of time and this is being resolved by this hearing now.

Judge Crabtree therefore granted the MCFD request for two days access rather than three days, thus interfering with frequency. However, the total of nine hours of visitation remains intact. He did not grant the Bayne request for unsupervised visitation but what he did give the Baynes was the possibility of having those six hours on Saturday in their own home. That means supervised visits in their own home, of course contingent upon an in home assessment which means that two social workers will come to their home to inspect the facilities. Special family events and occasions are to be accommodated as visitation opps as well.

This in home inspection is to happen before October 6^th so that any resultant issues my be resolved by THE JUDGE on that day of THE CLOSING SUMMATION.

To the Blog Reader: Some serious reservations arise for me with regard to six hours of visitation time in your own home with a note taking supervisor sitting in your space the entire time. Do some concerns come to your mind as well? Zabeth alluded in court this week to the difficulty they experience during visitation, to know how to respond appropriately to child behaviour that requires some correction or discipline when a supervisor is observing and recording. Will they be deemed too lenient or too severe? And then I wonder what kind of reporting results from a supervisor compelled to put in six hours at one time, weekly. Do the comments become more critical and condemning at the fourth, fifth and sixth hours? How stressful will it be for Paul and Zabeth to put in this kind of time under such intense scrutiny. It is abnormal and uncomfortable. Within six hours there are many potty breaks, snacks, meals, naps perhaps, outside play, inside play, gabbing, talking story reading and who knows what else. Will the supervisor be scolding them and warning them again not to speak of the past or the future or giving children hope or escorting them to the john? The children will be living for six hours among the toys and familiar items of their past family life. It will be natural even instinctive for a mom to make sure her daughter is okay in the bathroom. Is the supervisor under instruction by the Ministry workers to give the parents trouble, badger them, intimidate them and be alert to situations that can be used to verify their unfitness. I don't know. I am asking.  

BUT BELIEVE ME I AM THRILLED THAT THE BAYNES HAVE THIS TIME WITH THEIR CHILDREN IN THIS VENUE.

UNSUPERVISED VISITATION REQUEST / Part 213 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Today, the Baynes face yet another day in court. Although their current court case is scheduled for August 9-13th , they are asking for unsupervised visitation in their children's best interests. Once again lawyer Finn Jensen has prepared a copious rebuttal. This is a challenge to which good parents should never be subjected.

Let's examine the preferred development of a case like this. First principle: When social workers remove a child from what appears to be apparent danger, that is only the beginning of the social workers' responsibilities. Then a thorough assessment must be conducted and written. Such a fact-finding process should be undertaken with an open mind. The social worker/investigator must probe for both positives and negatives, affirming and damaging facts. If social workers have committed themselves to working with people, this can only be accomplished by focusing upon strengths and favourable factors. Even when a life or family situation is bleak and unpromising initially, with some closer examination, the hopefulness and promise in a situation may become obvious. What should certainly not occur is the construction of an assessment with as much smear and tarnish as the investigator(s) can accumulate to support an early preconception.

Second principle: Assessing the cause of an injury is not to be regarded as a medical determination but rather a legal one. That has been the error in this case with the Baynes. Examination of the injured child in 2007 and consequent medical evidence was necessary and important and even compelling. However, it cannot be assumed within the purview of the medical examiner's qualifications to determine the cause and then that such testimony is regarded as expert testimony upon which social workers rest their case for child removal and in this case going so far as to propose to take away the children from the parents forever. This leads injustice inherent to the system built on the existing flawed Act. To build an accurate and trustworthy assessment the social worker must take into account both medical and social evidence. A thorough social profile will provide a responsible guide for the social worker to assess likelihood of deliberate injury. Of the many child injuries presented at hospitals each day, most are accidental. That means that an assumption of deliberate injury should never be automatic. Certainly, accidents can be attributed to carelessness by the caregiver yet this still does not adjudge the parent to be unfit to parent or a guaranteed risk to be careless a second time. In the Bayne case, the doctor made the assumption of non accidental injury albeit based upon accepted prescripts in her department of her hospital yet she made this diagnostic choice even when accidental injury was the parents' explanation and a valid alternative explanation as other experts later attested. While one can argue that the social workers are not to be faulted for accepting the doctor's report, had they done an unbiased and more scrupulous profiling they would have discovered contradictions with the diagnosis and with the assumption of non accidental injury.

Third Principle: Evidence in a well attested case should go before the court immediately. MCFD was responding adequately and correctly during the first few months of this case. However, as soon as the alternative and conflicting medical explanations appeared to explicate the baby's injuries this case was in doubt and should have been reconsidered. When the case already looked unwinnable or suspiciously lacking in evidence, MCFD should have reviewed the case. There was no abusive profile for either parent with which to take this awful case to court. At so many points MCFD decision makers should have stopped this and reassessed the case. Jensen himself told his MCFD client to give the boys back to the Baynes because MCFD had no case that it could win, yet here we are. MCFD rejected his advice. MCFD has been seeking to justify its ponderous insensitivity by forging ahead rather than being impeccably professional. For the MCFD a good case doesn't need to be delayed for one year, two years, almost three years. Yet this one has been so delayed. When a case is clear and without question, there is every reason to get the evidence before the court as soon as possible. It should be a concern to us all, to the judge, to the Director, to the Minister and Deputy Minister of MCFD that the CBC story which aired on its website revealed that the MCFD had not followed the time lines required by its own governing ACT (Child, Family and Community Services Act). Jensen tried to dance around this in court.