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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Actually, the CFCSA in BC is against the Charter of Rights for the parents, in that the presentation hearing does not allow for the parents to cross-examine the social workers, or have in question the information used to justify the removal. It is the only place in Canadian Law where the burden of proof is 10%. That is too low, and by being that low for the Ministry, it is a kangaroo court to justify the removals so that the Ministry is not liable for the criminal charge of kidnapping, which it would be without a custodial order.
I worry that if the Supreme Court does rule that it is against the Charter, that BC will use the "notwithstanding" clause, which means that nothing changes.
The legal proces is not fair. I suspect that if the burden of proof was tighter, it would force accountability in the system with tighter clinical assessments. Right now, there is not, and I ended up fighting over a removal based on one two year old incident, the social workers knowing my oldest son fabricated stories, but returning my youngest child and keeping my older two??
Yeah, and it cost over $10000 for legal fees. I choose to get my kids back than be right. It is expensive to fight the state, and we never did get to answer to the accusations that were placed against us. The truth is irrelevant.
In my file disclosure, which came to me and my lawyer convieniently after we attended a mediation, I uncovered outright perjury in my presentation hearing. Kind of looks like legal games to cover up stuff. Ironic that the social workers want so much honesty from you, including trust, but if they screw up, they are hiding it as quickly as they can. These social workers are naive enough to think that their behaviour should be overlooked and parents should just trust them. I did not fall off the turnup truck yesterday.
The file did not back up the testimony of the social workers. Me? Well, I will be saving that little tidbit if necessary, cause perjury is a CRIMINAL offense.I did complain to a manager, and it is nice to see social workers coming to court with some notes. God knows they do elsewhere in CANADA where they have to work a little harder to get a child removed. Elsewhere, they basically have to prove their case, not just report what happened and get it rubber stamped.
I learned a lot about the system, such as social workers believing the legal system is flawed. Actually, it is not. It is the co-signing the social workers with such power that there is no accountability in individual cases without cross-examination with such a low burden of proof that gets me. If there is malicious gossip, misunderstanding or misinformation in an MCFD file, it can make your life really miserable, trying to sort out the crap from the real problems.
I expected to be treated fairly; instead, I got ignorant, barely ink dry degree social worker, with no clinical understanding of the complex issues of my older children, as it was well beyond her understanding, knowledge and expereince. Her trauma background is lacking, and in examining the attachment of my older ADOPTED kids to do a quick check for possible risk, she ignored the obvious, and overestimated the risk, commiting a fundamental attribution error (their attachment will not be as secure given they are adopted, and as older children.) My biggest frustration was I knew more than my worker, and she got little more from her supervisor, who was also busy projecting into the file, rather than listening.
The courts assume the social worker is acting with professional integrity. They make mistakes. To fight MCFD means a supreme court challenge; who has that kind of money when MCFD will fight you using your tax dollars? And, it takes a long time, and your kids are in the care of strangers, being parented and encouraged to attach to strangers.
The systemic ignorance included failing to inform a pediatrican of symptom changes on medication, and when my daughter was psychotic, they decided to have a meeting to put her into a different placement RATHER than take her to a doctor. I argued with them, given her history, that if they put her in another placement, that if she did not have reactive attachment disorder, she will if she got move two more times. The psychiatrist diagnosed her, after I was bullied into cooperating with this bad plan (You put in that place or else we remove your other kids), with REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER. Thank you MCFD, as this plan made her worse, not better. And, I have just as much support as before; virtually none, as I will never go to MCFD for help, as I would rather move to another province than get help from them.
There is no evidence that my daughter was seen by a medical practitioner during this psychotic phase. She was overdosed for at least four weeks. Myopic and foolish. I caustically said at the time of this bad plan "when you get medical degrees"; would you believe that they ignored me cause I had no entitlement to stand up for her because they stripped me of my custody? So, what exactly is a parent supposed to do, suck it up, even if the parents HAVE a social work background and more experience? Yep. And, if a parent cannot advocate for what their children need, then why bother?
I see a horrible attitude in BC, when MCFD is involved in your life, and when they demand too much, to dump your kids on the MINISTRY, that does not happen elsewhere. People find that they get relief, as it is easier to give up because their attachment to their kids is eroded by the way you have no say, and no involvement, and are completely discouraged from trying. People are motivated elsewhere in Canada to try to keep their own; here, they are discouraged, and people just "oh well" to these abandoned kids. You cannot fight MCFD and keep your family, as the MCFD machine will encourage you to accept a lack of resources, a lack of supports, and let the government "there there now" pat you on the head for being foolish enough to try, we will take care of your child, and lead them to no high school graduation, no job, on going welfare or low paying jobs, drug addiction, sex trade, and god knows what else. The real issue for me is that in foster care, the child is no better off, and is doomed to repeat the cycle, where MCFD removes the next generation for safety reasons,
In other provinces, lawsuits have straightened out a lot of problems with child welfare agencies. Public outcry over "how did a child die in care?" There needs to be a zero tolerance policy of children dying in care from anything other than a natural, disease cause. What is needed is to show the public that what is spent right now is wasteful, and that better practices, stabilization programs, and the like, would be cheaper. It is cheaper to fund respite than to pay the costs of care, yet respite is only available to foster parents, not people trying to care for their children.
Another problem is the lack of attachment therapy for foster and adoptive children in this province. We know that multiple placements creates issues for kids, and rather than treat it, the Ministry myopically acts like it does not exist (in other words, being in care cannot be the harmful to the child), and so without a way to make it happen (It is not a child centred approach, but a family centred one.) It does not exist. I think it is neglient that MCFD does not even try to treat the problem that comes from placing children in care for their own safety. Other provinces have these programs attached to child protection agencies. I doubt BC will do more than lip service.
How do we fight this? Political action. Yes, it is good that we are finding out what is happening in the system. But we need to get the family having more power and say, including a demand for better services. BC government has this wonderful view of how children should be raised, but does nothing to pay for the costs of treatment, and literally cheaps out on special needs supports, allowing us to raise the next generation of disenfranchised criminals (like the justice system can help). Not paying for it is taking over, for aboriginal people, where residential schools left off, and for other unfortunate families, intergenerational involvement with MCFD, where "I wonder if grandma had a file" is a reason to question her capacity to parent her grandchildren. Thirty year old information is about what was, not what is; half the social workers have not done enough of their own healing to appreciate the work it takes to resolve some of these issues. And, sometimes grandma is a better person in that she is a little wiser, but as she is older, would and should be entitled to daycare support for raising the kids if before school, and during the school years. What I see is the idea that clinically, people only see the idea that "some people should not raise their own" cause of "unresolved trauma and abuse." The social injustice is that these damaged people are not respected for surviving, they are dismissed as not capable. If we had a system of support, and a system of "no harm no foul" to get access via self referral, people would access services, and use them. Right now, to get access to specialized services, open a PROTECTION file, which implies the children are at risk, and then convince a social worker, that you need what you need, and not something else. In other words, the services are doled out and gate kept, to keep costs down. Other places reward self-referral; in BC, we need to strip people of their dignity, and not allow them to reach out for help on their own. We need to find ways for the state to be less intrusive and more supportive of families, otherwise the 'family development" part of the ministry name is nothing more than window dressing.
Post a Comment