by Ron Unruh
The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) has exhibited its already notorious failure to abide by its own policy and legal timelines in the case of Ayn Van Dyk. Ayn is ten years old and... she is autistic. The policy which both empowers MCFD and gives direction to its operations is called Child, Family and Community Services Act. CFCSA specifies clear timelines for speedy processing. Speed has not characterized the way Ayn’s case has been handled following her removal. Ayn’s father Derek Hoare is presently in the centre of this agency’s ineptitude. Assembled below is a clip of dum-dum bullets.
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLib
• MCFD’s Failure to comply with timelines is true in Derek’s and Ayn’s case but not unique to their case but corroborated repeatedly in the experiences of other parents and children.
• Ayn was heavily drugged soon after her apprehension without reference to a medical history from her father. MCFD prevented doctors from communicating with Derek. Although CFCSA expects medical documentation to be delivered to the parent, Derek has not received that.
• The separation of a child from her parents and siblings is governed by specific directives and timelines, but Ayn was not granted visitation with a parent for two months. Without physical or mental anguish concerns about the father relative to his child, MCFD has generated excessive anguish for this family.
• The Presentation Hearing must begin within seven days of a child’s removal. Ayn’s Presentation Hearing was three months late. Ayn was removed on June 16, 2011 and her Presentation Hearing was not held until September 1 and followed up September 26. “Article 34 (1) No later than 7 days after the day a child is removed under section 30, the director must attend the court for a presentation hearing.”
• A Case Conference is a formal meeting at court with the judge to see if a solution can be reached without proceeding to a protection hearing. The Case Conference results when at Presentation a parent does not agree with the SW’s application for a court order. If there is not progress toward agreement, then there is further delay as a court date for a Protection Hearing is scheduled.
• 98% of parents do not get their children back at this stage in a case, even when it is evident that the child’s removal was inappropriate. A temporary supervision order by the presiding judge would have been the preferred option.
• The Protection Hearing is late, already five months late as of Nov 11th, 2011 and the next court appearance is not until January 23, 2012. This hearing should have technically happened by August 14. And if you mark 45 days from MCFD’s deferred Presentation Hearing date of September 26 the Protection hearing should be no later than November 17th. “Article 37 (1) At the conclusion of a presentation hearing under section 33.2, 35 or 36 (2), the court must set the earliest possible date for a hearing to determine if the child needs protection, or confirm any date previously set for the protection hearing, unless the court has made. Article 37 (2) The date set under subsection (1) for commencing the hearing must not be more than 45 days after the conclusion of the presentation hearing, and the hearing must be concluded as soon as possible.” “Article 42.1.(7) When an interim order is made under subsection (6), the court must set a date, not more than 45 days after the conclusion of the presentation hearing, for a hearing to determine if the child was removed in accordance with section 42.”
• Derek took all reasonable precautions to safeguard and protect Ayn while he cared for her and still she wandered from her back yard not defiantly but curiously as a product of her autism. She was removed from her own father. Two foster parents did not prevent Ayn from wandering from foster care even though she has been medicated for many weeks with anti-psychotic drugs. She was returned to foster care.
• MCFD possesses unilateral ability to return Ayn to Derek’s care but typically makes an offer of a graduated return over a four month period, even though MCFD took the child in one swift action without first notifying Ayn’s father.
• Derek demonstrates to MCFD a cooperative spirit to plan for Ayn’s future care. Now MCFD has proposed resources far superior to those he was given while she was in his earlier care.
• Derek’s and MCFD’s opinions about Ayn’s care differ dramatically, that is, love and attention contrasted with mood controlling drugs.
• MCFD’s stated intent to affect assessments with regard to Ayn and any valid reason to retain her have not been conducted and there are no plans to do so, so no reason exists to retain her in government care.
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLib
• MCFD’s Failure to comply with timelines is true in Derek’s and Ayn’s case but not unique to their case but corroborated repeatedly in the experiences of other parents and children.
• Ayn was heavily drugged soon after her apprehension without reference to a medical history from her father. MCFD prevented doctors from communicating with Derek. Although CFCSA expects medical documentation to be delivered to the parent, Derek has not received that.
• The separation of a child from her parents and siblings is governed by specific directives and timelines, but Ayn was not granted visitation with a parent for two months. Without physical or mental anguish concerns about the father relative to his child, MCFD has generated excessive anguish for this family.
• The Presentation Hearing must begin within seven days of a child’s removal. Ayn’s Presentation Hearing was three months late. Ayn was removed on June 16, 2011 and her Presentation Hearing was not held until September 1 and followed up September 26. “Article 34 (1) No later than 7 days after the day a child is removed under section 30, the director must attend the court for a presentation hearing.”
• A Case Conference is a formal meeting at court with the judge to see if a solution can be reached without proceeding to a protection hearing. The Case Conference results when at Presentation a parent does not agree with the SW’s application for a court order. If there is not progress toward agreement, then there is further delay as a court date for a Protection Hearing is scheduled.
• 98% of parents do not get their children back at this stage in a case, even when it is evident that the child’s removal was inappropriate. A temporary supervision order by the presiding judge would have been the preferred option.
• The Protection Hearing is late, already five months late as of Nov 11th, 2011 and the next court appearance is not until January 23, 2012. This hearing should have technically happened by August 14. And if you mark 45 days from MCFD’s deferred Presentation Hearing date of September 26 the Protection hearing should be no later than November 17th. “Article 37 (1) At the conclusion of a presentation hearing under section 33.2, 35 or 36 (2), the court must set the earliest possible date for a hearing to determine if the child needs protection, or confirm any date previously set for the protection hearing, unless the court has made. Article 37 (2) The date set under subsection (1) for commencing the hearing must not be more than 45 days after the conclusion of the presentation hearing, and the hearing must be concluded as soon as possible.” “Article 42.1.(7) When an interim order is made under subsection (6), the court must set a date, not more than 45 days after the conclusion of the presentation hearing, for a hearing to determine if the child was removed in accordance with section 42.”
• Derek took all reasonable precautions to safeguard and protect Ayn while he cared for her and still she wandered from her back yard not defiantly but curiously as a product of her autism. She was removed from her own father. Two foster parents did not prevent Ayn from wandering from foster care even though she has been medicated for many weeks with anti-psychotic drugs. She was returned to foster care.
• MCFD possesses unilateral ability to return Ayn to Derek’s care but typically makes an offer of a graduated return over a four month period, even though MCFD took the child in one swift action without first notifying Ayn’s father.
• Derek demonstrates to MCFD a cooperative spirit to plan for Ayn’s future care. Now MCFD has proposed resources far superior to those he was given while she was in his earlier care.
• Derek’s and MCFD’s opinions about Ayn’s care differ dramatically, that is, love and attention contrasted with mood controlling drugs.
• MCFD’s stated intent to affect assessments with regard to Ayn and any valid reason to retain her have not been conducted and there are no plans to do so, so no reason exists to retain her in government care.
