Meanwhile, under the microscope
The Public Eye Online.
Yesterday, child and youth representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond released a monitoring brief identifying a number of key concerns with the service delivery system for children with special needs. But, what wasn't mentioned in the coverage of that brief, is that Ms. Turpel-Lafond also suggested during her news conference the need for a wider review of services for the developmentally disabled in British Columbia. "I know there's been an internal review of CLBC adult services inside the government," she said. "But it may very well be it may very well be that there needs to be a full-blow external evaluation of this area. The challenge for me is I only have the children's piece."
Posted by Sean Holman at 07:48 AM
************************************
Representative's Office:
February 26, 2008
Action required to improve supports for children/youth with special needs
Vulnerable children and youth with special needs and their families and caregivers need a more responsive and accountable system of supports, said BC's Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond.
Other documents shared at the Representative's February 26 news conference:
Monitoring brief - System of services for children and youth with special needs
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thumbs up for Aboriginal schools
Native-only getting the thumbs-up from BC's child advocate
Feb, 29 2008 - 12:40 PM
VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980) - A native-only public school proposal in Prince George is getting the thumbs-up from BC's child advocate.
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond says the education system needs to do more to improve graduation rates for aboriginal children, and that means celebrating their native heritage through courses and activities.
"Many first nations students in British Columbia feel they have challenges in some of their school settings, especially in the urban context, they experience racism, they may experience exclusion. We have to work on that, but we may also need to create some choices where you have those schools."
BC has an 80 percent graduation rate, but only 48 percent of aboriginal children graduate....that rate falls to 15 percent for aboriginal children in care.
Feb, 29 2008 - 12:40 PM
VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980) - A native-only public school proposal in Prince George is getting the thumbs-up from BC's child advocate.
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond says the education system needs to do more to improve graduation rates for aboriginal children, and that means celebrating their native heritage through courses and activities.
"Many first nations students in British Columbia feel they have challenges in some of their school settings, especially in the urban context, they experience racism, they may experience exclusion. We have to work on that, but we may also need to create some choices where you have those schools."
BC has an 80 percent graduation rate, but only 48 percent of aboriginal children graduate....that rate falls to 15 percent for aboriginal children in care.
Important BC Child Welfare Case
Parents hope judge rules seizure of sextuplets was unconstitutional
Last Updated: Friday, February 29, 2008 11:02 PM ET
The Canadian Press
Excerpt:
Medical opinion, the government's duty to protect children, parental rights and freedom of religion clashed in a B.C. courtroom Friday over the seizure of three premature sextuplets.
Three of the four surviving sextuplets were taken from their home last year and given blood transfusions, contrary to the beliefs of their Jehovah's Witness parents.
They've long since returned to their parents, but the mother and father want the B.C. Supreme Court to declare that the seizure was unconstitutional.
Justice Donald Brenner said Friday that such applications often proceed in what is perceived as a life-and-death issue.
But Shane Brady, the lawyer for the parents, said the children were not in danger and because the parents weren't given the right to make their case in court before the children were taken away, the law allowing government to seize children should be declared unconstitutional...
B.C., New Brunswick, Northwest Territories and Nunavut are the only jurisdictions in Canada that allow the government to seize children without a hearing.
Brady said he wants the court to rule that it is unconstitutional to do so.
Other CBC stories:
B.C. sextuplets didn't need transfusions, expert testifies
Sextuplet parents take B.C. to court over baby seizures
**************************************************
What this is essentially about is challenging the Child, Family & Community Services Act (CFCSA), the prevailing legislation for child protection in BC. As it stands now, MCFD removes children from their parents, or legal guardians care prior to going to court and asking a judge's permission to do so. If a removal takes place, planned, or otherwise, MCFD must appear in court within 7 days of the removal and present their reasons for why less intrusive measures were not available. It is often the case that the matter is adjourned until parents can obtain legal counsel, although legal aid lawyers (Duty counsel) are often available to provide initial advice. Unless MCFD withdraws the removal at the time of the first appearance, the child(ren) remains in foster care, or in a placement with someone else. At some point, a judge will be satisfied the removal was necessary and that the child was in need of protection, or they may disagree and return the children home, or the children might be returned home right away by MCFD, or placed with kith & kin.
If the judge finds the parent's rights were violated, or the children were not at imminent risk he would find that the children shouldn't have been removed in the first place and that the CFCSA
is unconstitutional and their rights were violated. This could set a precedent and turn the child protection system on it's head.
Last Updated: Friday, February 29, 2008 11:02 PM ET
The Canadian Press
Excerpt:
Medical opinion, the government's duty to protect children, parental rights and freedom of religion clashed in a B.C. courtroom Friday over the seizure of three premature sextuplets.
Three of the four surviving sextuplets were taken from their home last year and given blood transfusions, contrary to the beliefs of their Jehovah's Witness parents.
They've long since returned to their parents, but the mother and father want the B.C. Supreme Court to declare that the seizure was unconstitutional.
Justice Donald Brenner said Friday that such applications often proceed in what is perceived as a life-and-death issue.
But Shane Brady, the lawyer for the parents, said the children were not in danger and because the parents weren't given the right to make their case in court before the children were taken away, the law allowing government to seize children should be declared unconstitutional...
B.C., New Brunswick, Northwest Territories and Nunavut are the only jurisdictions in Canada that allow the government to seize children without a hearing.
Brady said he wants the court to rule that it is unconstitutional to do so.
Other CBC stories:
B.C. sextuplets didn't need transfusions, expert testifies
Sextuplet parents take B.C. to court over baby seizures
**************************************************
What this is essentially about is challenging the Child, Family & Community Services Act (CFCSA), the prevailing legislation for child protection in BC. As it stands now, MCFD removes children from their parents, or legal guardians care prior to going to court and asking a judge's permission to do so. If a removal takes place, planned, or otherwise, MCFD must appear in court within 7 days of the removal and present their reasons for why less intrusive measures were not available. It is often the case that the matter is adjourned until parents can obtain legal counsel, although legal aid lawyers (Duty counsel) are often available to provide initial advice. Unless MCFD withdraws the removal at the time of the first appearance, the child(ren) remains in foster care, or in a placement with someone else. At some point, a judge will be satisfied the removal was necessary and that the child was in need of protection, or they may disagree and return the children home, or the children might be returned home right away by MCFD, or placed with kith & kin.
If the judge finds the parent's rights were violated, or the children were not at imminent risk he would find that the children shouldn't have been removed in the first place and that the CFCSA
is unconstitutional and their rights were violated. This could set a precedent and turn the child protection system on it's head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
