A QUESTION OF INEQUITY Dec 13. 2009 | Comments (0)
Blog post from the blog GPS
Paul and Zabeth have been informed in the past that when they visit
their three children on the two afternoons each week, they are not to
speak to their children about the past. That’s correct. They are not
permitted to talk about what it was like to be a family two years ago.
They are not to remind them of home as it was before the Ministry of
Children stepped into their lives in October 2007 and removed the
children from all that was familiar. These two little boys have been in
four foster homes in two years, yet Paul and Zabeth are not permitted
to speak hope to them about the possibility of coming home to be a
family again. A supervisor sits in all these family gatherings and
listens, even making notes of what is observed and heard. Paul and
Zabeth must be in compliance or visiting rights may be removed
completely, because these children now belong to the province of
British Columbia under an interim court order. Interim lasts a long
time - over two years apparently!
But then, please note this
inequity! The other afternoon while Zabeth and Paul visited their boys,
one of them told mommy and daddy that the caregiver has told him that
if the Judge rules that she can keep the children, then she promises to
put them in swimming lessons. Would you consider that to be talking
about the future and seeking to engender hope for a certain future
outcome? I would. So apparently the same conversational restrictions
are not applicable to the temporary care giver. It’s challenging for me
to envision a foster caregiver wanting to kindle in a child an
expectation for a result that terminates an existing family completely.
This child has been told that he will be with the caregiver for a long
time. How much more constructive would it be for a foster parent
working for the province’s child protection and family development
agency to be on assignment to encourage that child to believe that his
family will come together again because that is what ‘we all want.’
‘We’ should pertain to every member of this MCFD enterprise.
‘Restoration’ seems not to belong in the vocabulary of the MCFD
officials who have managed the Bayne portfolio. On this same afternoon
Paul and Zabeth were reminded that they are not allowed to speak to
their children alone or out of the hearing range of a supervisor. No
private conversations are permitted.
The regional MCFD should be
all over this to insure the integrity of the Ministry’s mandate is not
compromised. The regional MCFD office that manages the Bayne case is
the Fraser Region. It will be
interesting to learn whether this is acceptable MCFD practice or
whether the Victoria MCFD front office conscience alarm goes off when
they learn of this.