|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 10, 2007 10:48:38 GMT -5
here is a good blog Ive been reading blog.davidjanes.com/:entry:davidjanes-2004-05-26-0009/Ive taken some of the comments and put them below. The Ontario Children's Aid Society should be folded, all it's members forbidden to have jobs that bring them into contact with children again in their lives, and their buildings should be razed and the ground sown with salt. The CAS is attempting to strip two children from their foster parents (who they've been with since they've been babies to hand them over to strangers in BC. Their reasoning is based on the twisted and sick racist "thought" that informs far to many people in government social services: But the foster parents are white, and Ian Mang, the lawyer who represents the Squamish Nation of Vancouver, said yesterday the little girls' ties to their native roots are more important "than attachment to caregivers or transient expressions of affection." A wonderful governmental description of who their parents feel for their children. Mr. Mang acknowledged that tearing the youngsters from the only real families they have ever known may cause "some problems," but said, in effect, that a bit of short-term pain is better than a long-term identity crisis that would have the children returning to the band as "messed-up adults at the age of 18." Yes, imagine the confusion these poor children will feel when they found out that a person of a different race raised them. It makes you ill to your stomach, doesn't it? But David Feliciant, the lawyer for the Hamilton CAS, said the case is not about any unfair treatment accorded the foster families, or about the band flexing any political muscle. Nor, Mr. Feliciant added, is the case about love. "It is naïve to suggest that love conquers all," he snapped. "It doesn't." Yes, and certainly not the mighty power of the goon and the bureaucrat. In particular, Mr. Mang, who is white, emphasized yesterday how special, even indescribable, is "what it's like to be Squamish" and "grow up Squamish" amid the "sacred places" of the reserve. Ohhh, he's white. Wow, that's changes everything. Why, if a white person things these children should be stripped from his family, well it must be ok. And cower, ye worm, under the mighty indescribable power of the sacred Squamish place! How can you understand, you pathetic loser with no real culture or history worth talking what it's like to be a part of a real society? Mr. Feliciant, while saying he wasn't diminishing the pain the children would suffer if removed from their homes, described it as "short-term distress." Imagine anyone you know that has children, who they love and who love them back. These foster parents are these children's real parents: they're the only parents and the only love they've ever known. Now, imagine them being kidnapped by strangers. And saying, hey, they'll get over it.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 10, 2007 10:50:03 GMT -5
Comment #1 — Alan I am not going to give you are hard time on this but to let you know we fostered a First Nations child from a few days to the largest part of the first year. At the heart of it we knew and were told that we were the foster family and therefore not the final home in any respect. Our case had a happy ending with a good return. And, knowing that particular First Nation community pretty much as well as anyone I ever met who was not from it, I do think there is a difference - not better or worse but different so for a few reasons return made much sense.
I don't know about this case so if you could link it would be good. We were sure lucky and in family law there are few real comparisons between cases.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 10, 2007 10:51:28 GMT -5
Comment #2 — David Sorry, forgot the link: fixed.
If you had the baby before it could form memories and wanted to keep it, I would feel the same way in your case. The concept of race, tribe, group as having rights that overreach the individuals "included" within ... excepting cases of voluntary association ... sickens me.
The lesson of the second millenia is that we should be moving away from this, not enshrining it. The problems with racism in the past was _racism_, not that the wrong groups were being discriminated against.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 10, 2007 10:52:33 GMT -5
Comment #3 — Alan
It is not racist to observe cultural difference. Being a child of Scots immigrants, in school, I was always dealing with two sets of rules (and that was in Nova Scotia!) Even more so if you are from a community farther from the "two founding nations". Our foster kid was with us almost from day one (day three) but we had contact with a parent more than once a week so there was no clean cut which I suppose maked a big difference.
But in any event, the real important thing in this is that these are foster parents. If it is like the regime we were under, you have little say in any decision of any kind and could lose any placement really on any date. That aspect of fostering is the same everywhere and from the child's point of view (whatever the reason) is always an awful attack on their stability. That is why I now have a much greater respect for what they do and will likely get back into it as soon as we have larger living space.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 10, 2007 10:53:30 GMT -5
Comment #4 — David I don't deny that race or culture exists.
I would suggest that's incredibly racist to suggest that _race_ is an overriding factor over placing a child in a stable home, or in this particular case, taking child _out_ of _their stable home_ to place them in an unknown.
Furthermore, I offer that "one drop of blood"/"white blood is universally soluable"-type rules are racist without further arument.
Finally, I would suggest there would (rightfully) be a lynch mob if they took a (say) Scots child way from Black adoptive parents because the child wouldn't be raised in it's "own culture".
Ek, even that blood = culture thought turns my stomach.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 10, 2007 10:54:20 GMT -5
Comment #5 — Alan
I would be more agreeable with you (in a politically correct kind of way) if this were between persons seeking custody. Fostering is just not the same animal - except, of course, from the child's point of view.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 10, 2007 10:55:07 GMT -5
Comment #6 — David
The CAS is _supposed_ to take the child's point of view (in terms of his or her best interest), which is what has me so upset. And the CAS has decided that the best interest of aboriginal children is defined primarily by race, _not_ by being in a stable home (which the child now has). Which is not only incomphrensible to me and banally evil, but also brings us back to my first paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 10, 2007 10:56:03 GMT -5
Comment #7 — Alan
I think your issue is with the government rather than the CAS as the provisions of the statute include consideration of aboriginal heritage. See section 61(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11:
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 10, 2007 10:57:01 GMT -5
61. (2) The society having care of a child shall choose a residential placement for the child that,
(a) represents the least restrictive alternative for the child;
(b) where possible, respects the religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised;
(c) where possible, respects the child’s linguistic and cultural heritage;
(d) where the child is an Indian or a native person, is with a member of the child’s extended family, a member of the child’s band or native community or another Indian or native family, if possible; and
(e) takes into account the child’s wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained, and the wishes of any parent who is entitled to access to the child. Comment #8 — David 2004-05-26 15:05:11 · edit Best interests of child
(3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall take into consideration those of the following circumstances of the case that he or she considers relevant:
1. The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.
[ 12 more items ]
Where child an Indian or native person
(4) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child and the child is an Indian or native person, the person shall take into consideration the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of Indian and native culture, heritage and traditions, of preserving the child’s cultural identity. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 37 (3, 4).
[ Note that the foster parents are not attempting to erase or deny the child's heritage. Consider is not "overrides all other considerations" ]
---
Rights of child, parent and foster parent
(5) The society having care of a child shall ensure that,
...
(b) the wishes of any parent who is entitled to access to the child and, where the child is a Crown ward, of any foster parent with whom the child has lived continuously for two years are taken into account in the society’s major decisions concerning the child.
[ Note here that Foster parents are treated at the same level as parents once two years have passed, which they have in this case
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 10, 2007 10:58:13 GMT -5
Comment #9 — Alan
But the foster parents, as employees effectively of the CAS, are subject to the decision of the CAS in operating under this scheme and you have a section 37(5) v. section 62(2)(d) statutory conflict of interests. Section 61(2) appears to be more mandatory in its use of "shall" in relation to placement to my quick reading than 37(5) which is a requirement to take someone's point of view into account. We are drilling down very close so I would only say this is where a judge would be called in as it is a issue of interpretation of a statute.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 10, 2007 10:59:53 GMT -5
Comment #10 — kathy
Returning to the band as messed up adults at age 18..."
Who says they'll be "returning to the band" after living off-reserve? Never mind "Par-ee": how ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, once they get their first look at the FARM?!
"Messed up adults"? Yeah, not like those messed up glue-sniffing teens who grew up ON the oh-so-sacred rez... Pretty weird sacred place that seems to spawn generations of alcoholic high school dropouts.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 10, 2007 11:02:04 GMT -5
Comment #11 — Just a thought
Yeah, that's it. Children aren't individuals. They are just a piece of property, like land.
This is disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 10, 2007 11:04:12 GMT -5
Comment #12 — David In the National Post article (not accessable online), either the Squamish or CAS lawyers said the foster parents should get to keep their children because the foster parent's lawyers introduced evidence that Squamish rez was a sh*thole with exactly the problems you're speaking of.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 10, 2007 11:05:28 GMT -5
Comment #13 — don mceachern
THE CAS ARE A BAND OF CRIMINALS. PARENTAL ALIENATION IS A CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN.
MY THREE YEAR OLD DAUGHTER HASEN'T SEEN HER DADDY IN OVER A YEAR. TOO BAD I CAN"T FIND A COP,A JUDGE,A SOCIAL WORKER WITH ENOUGH OXYGEN RUNNING TO THEIR BRAIN TO ACKNOWLEDGE A TEEN BOY WHO TELLS A SIX YEAR OLD GIRL SHE IS A "SEXY BITCH IN HER BIKINI AND HE WOULD HAVE HER", POSES A THREAT. I WILL BE ON THE FRONT LINE IN THE BATTLE AGAINST THESE CORRUPT BASXXXDS FROM HERE ON IN.
I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT I SAY AND THEY KNOW WHO I AM AND WHERE I AM.
FEEL FREE TO PRINT MY NAME OR CONTACT ME.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Dec 10, 2007 11:06:30 GMT -5
Comment #14 — Mikka
CAS contacted my fiancees parents and convinced them that we were horrible parents and my fiancees parents took our children away. On our court date the childrens grandmother brought up the point that CAS contacted them by way of a phone call and told them that the children were not safe with us. The judge said that he wants nothing to do with CAS because all they do is hide in the bushes and get other people to do their work for them. CAS are a bunch of manipulative, conniving, sneaky, sons of bitches! I don't care what anyone has to say about this. I'd like to see someone tell me any different about them!
|
|