Please take the time to read my story and check my site out
In the Bill For Children's Rights of Divorce under paragraph 3,13 and 17. It states the child(ren) have the right to reasonable and continued access and contact to the natural parent(s) and extended family,without the interferce of the other parent.In the case of child apprension,CPS/MCFD assumes the role of parent.
HIGHLIGHTS TYPED OUT FROM A RECENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: PG 41 PARA 1: MS E HAS ONLY 3 HOUR VISITATION TWICE A MONTH - ONE CAN CONCLUDE THAT DISABLED OR,ANY SINGLE PARENT WOULD BE CHALLENGED WITH THIS ACCESS. MORE FREQUENT AND LONGER PERIODS OF ACCESS THAT PERMIT ROUTINES AND NORMAL. PARENT - CHILD INTERACTION WORK BEST FOR CHILDREN VISITING THEIR NONRESIDENTIAL PARENT, IF THAT PARENT IS RESPONSIBLE. PG 42 PARA
2: ATTACHMENT OF THE BOYS TO THEIR MOTHER IS CERTAIN, AND HER DESIRE TO BE A HANDS ON PARENT IS CLEAR, AS IS HER INTELLECTUAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPACITY. PG 42 PARA 3: MS E HAS EXPERIENCED THE HELPLESSNESS AND FRUSTRATION OF BEING DEPENDANT UPON MCFD FOR SEEING HER CHILDREN, AND AT THE SAME TIME, HAVING NO COMMUNICATIONS OR CONNECTION WITH THE FOSTER PARENT, WHO WORKS MORE CLOSELY WITH MCFD THAN SHE DOES. LAURIE APPEARS TOBE RELATIVELY HEALTHY EMOTIONALLY, HER ANGER IS UNDERSTANDABLE AND SHE HAS FOCUSED IT IN CONSTRUCTIVE WAYS.
PG 110 (c) Psychological Report: Parenting Capacity of Laurie Edberg. (October 10,2000) (i) Ms. E's History. Dr. H. did very thorough history of Ms. E puts many of her behaviours into perspective, but as a survivor rather than a victim of her medical, family, and social struggles. Laurie, today (2005), must be seen as a successful person striving to have as full a life for herself and her children as possible. Neither neglect, physical/sexual/emotional abuse, nor physical disabilities predict inevitable psychological dysfunction. Studies of survivors show that individuals have a unique response to trauma "that is the complex interplay between life experiences and the developing self (McCann & Pearlman, 1990). Dr. H's Mental Status Exam of Ms. E indicated normal functioning.
PG 116 1) ASSUMED DIFFICULTIES DUE TO DISABILITY. 2) REASONING,ANALYTICAL SKILLS EXCELLENT. 5) COMMENT ON UNDUE STRESS L IS/HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO. 6) L IS A SURVIVOR - NORMAL FUNCTIONING. 7) NO DISORDERS OF DIFFICULTIES,PSYCHOLOGICAL. PG 120 2.6) LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY OF MCFD. 3.3) FOSTERPARENTS' DISDAINFUL ATTITUDE TOWARDS MS EDBERG. 3.4) L DESIRES MORE POSITIVE RESPECTFUL ARRANGEMENTS WITH OTHER CAREGIVERS. PG 122 5) ATTACHMENTS CONFIRMED. 5.5) BOYS PROUD OF THEIR MOTHER. PG 155 KEY PASSAGE 20.14) MOTHER NEEDS HELP, BOYS NEED THEIR MOTHER. PG 156 4) MCFD'S FOCUS ON BLAME,SHORTCOMINGS (REAL AND ASSUMED) RATHER THAN ON STRENGTHS. MORE MONEY SPENT ON KEEPING L SEPERATE FROM HER CHILDREN THAN ON PROVIDING APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENTS/SERVICES OF SUPPORT TEAM.//MY STORY IS AS FOLLOWED//
This is the A typical story of how MCFD/CAS treats special needs families. The first child was born May,1990. The twins were born Sept,1996.All 3 boys have ADHD and now after years of wasted time, one of the twins has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome and possibly the oldest has as too. From June 1990 till this date the children have been repeatedly apprehended.The familie lives in Courtenay,BC,Canada.The only crime that has ever een commited is of having ataxia and a tracheotomy.There has never been any evidence of any type of abuse. There have been repeatedly labeled with neglect.For the simple fact that ability to run after the twins or project voice loud enough is limited. There have in the past succeeded in my court cases,until Febuary of 2002.The oldest child was placed in continuing care in Febuary 2002,because a couple years earlier it was basically forced on person to sign a voluntary care agreement.Person was told by the social worker at the time,that person either place him in voluntary care or she would apprehend all three boys.In Febuary of 2002,the twins were returned to the custody.Only to have them reapprehended a few months later.The twins were placed in continuing care in November of 2004. In November of 2002,Person was given a court order allowing for 4 hours once a week unsupervised with the oldest child.Since the twins were apprehended in June of 2002,There have been varied visits lasting from once a week to 4 days a week for a few hours at a time.Since the court case in November of 2004.The visits and access has been limited to once a month for 1.5 hours.Even though I was invited by the judge to apply for reasonable access.
I ALSO NEED TO MENTION,IN THIS COURT CASE THAT EVEN THE MCFD'S WITNESSES EVEN TESTIFIED THE MOTHER AND CHILDREN LOVE EACHOTHER AND THERE IS/WAS NO EVIDIDENCE OF ABUSE.
There is a appeal in the supreme court set for August 2005,now on March 5,08 for the appeal to be heard and the access order to be heard in family court in 2006,which was denied. On April 14,2005 in the social workers office.She had stated in front of myself and my 2 local advocates,that there was every intention of putting boys up for adoption and the appeal before the courts had no weight on their intentions.But then after a hour of discussion,she agreed to increase my access to 2 visits a month for 3 hours.Feb/06,. Now after appeal has been dismissed in Mar 3,08. Access has been further decreased to 1.5 hours once a month.The next court date is set for June 7/06. Eventhough s.15 and s.55 in the BC legislation and Children,Family Services Act discribes how there is a obligation by MCFD and other government agencies to put proper supports as needed into the home to keep the paramount family optics in place.This has never been properly done. It seems that to MCFD it is somehow prudent to place children in care,where it costs thousands of dollars a month. Than to keep the children in the home of a loving parent, where it would cost a fraction of that money to put proper supports in the home.
IF YOU ARE A ADVOCATE FOR DISABLED PARENTS,I COULD CERTAINLY
USE YOUR ASSISTANCE.YOUR ASSISTANCE WILL BE A ADDED BENEFIT TO THE ASSISTANCE I ALREADY HAVE.THIS DELAY IS NOT JUSTICE TO MY CHILDREN.
