Saturday, October 10, 2015

Final Statement I Gave From The PGO Review Trial

Now that things have settled down from the trial I think it is time to share my final statement I gave for trial.  It is long and it is vetted.  So a bit might be confusing.  But I think it is very important for you all to read to help put all the final pieces together.  This can be read in the transcripts of the trial as well if anyone chooses to access those.

So here we go:

"As everyone knows I used the new legislation that came into effect January of 2014. Since it came out only one other case to my knowledge went to trial. That case was so different from my own that even I agree that the judge made the right decision to not send the child back home. The mother had not had any contact for several years with 0 attempt at contact and 0 attempt to show she was fit. Yet I have shown my repeated requests over many years and many workers to be re-evaluated and contact be re-instated between myself, my daughter and her brothers. She had known drug and alcohol problems, I do not and never have been an addict. She was homeless where as I have had a steady home with enough rooms for all my children for at least 2yrs prior to the PGO being granted. She had no siblings in her care that her child had grown up with and that had had regular contact. I do. She made no attempt to bring in any community supports to show that she was fit, I have and have had those supports in place for well over 3yrs. She never made her home accessible to mandated reporters to be able to prove her home clean, the environment safe. I have gone above and beyond to do such. She did not have another child born into her care to prove her fitness when no other avenue to prove her fitness was available. I did. I didn’t just prove my fitness with my youngest, I was able to prove my fitness so well that my daughter, who had had no contact with me for over 3yrs prior is now back in my home and the PGO rescinded. And I again proved my fitness so well that a 26yr veteran in the children services work has (vetted as it talks about our current special journey that I prefer to keep private)  

She could not prove point A - Which is her willingness, fitness and ability. With the countless professionals, who all are either funded by Child and Family Services, contracted with them or work for them directly, I think I have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that I am fit and have been for a good long while, since prior to my children being matched with their currant home and prior to the PGO being granted. The department and the children’s lawyer has already conceded my willingness but the social workers involved in my sons trial also have clearly shown that I requested for years, with multiple workers to please re-evaluate me and allow contact between my children to be reinstated. As well I have show through all the professionals we have worked with for the past 3+ years that we are fit, our home is suitable, our home is safe. Their own parental assessor that they hired to assess me passed me on every level other then the attachment. I can not think of any parent who has done more then I to prove point A for a long period of time.

The second part was what is in the best interest of the child. Since she could not in any way prove point A, point B became invalid. It is pointless to go further if point A can’t be established. So lets look at point B. What is in the best interest of my sons. With all the people who have testified, starting with my childrens original social worker, the main social worker for my children, all my children at that time. He clearly stated on the stand that what they thought was happening in that home and what was actually happening in that home were two drastically different things. For years my daughter was blamed for the problems in that home. I, countless times and the records show this, begged the department to investigate what was happening but because of my mental illness they would not even consider that I was reporting the truth. All they saw was what that couple told them to see. That I was mentally ill to the point of not being able to parent, that I was an addict(yet no history anywhere of addiction), that I was making false complaints. Time and again my visits were cut with no notice or warning or reason yet I would be blamed. As was easily shown with my last visit occurring on Oct 29, 2010 and the court date being Nov 4, 2010. Till then I had weekly unsupervised visits in our home. Their rooms were already set up months prior when we first moved there. Why would they suddenly say that visits were cut because of décor? It does not make any sense at all. Even the social worker we work with here testified to even be considered for overnights that a bed and space for the child to call there own is required. So why would social workers here say it was deemed appropriate with no concerns but my sons social workers are stating, with no evidence to back it up, that the visits were cut and unsupervised was removed because of decorating my sons own space in our home? Why is one ok and the other seen as a just cause to remove a mothers access? 

Along with that was the fact that I, a sufferer of PTSD from the extreme abuse I was raised in, by the same woman caring for my sons, would be required to be around my abuser. A huge trigger that even my daughters worker testified was toxic for me. Why would Children and Family Services, with no safety concerns noted, no court order from a judge stating to do so not only remove unsupervised access to my children but reduce it and require me to be around my abuser when they knew I suffered from PTSD because of what she did to me? Why was the only choice I was given had to be risking my mental health(which would have destroyed my ability to be fit, willing and able) or my children? Is that justice to make a mother choose between one or the other when both would lead to her losing her children? What choice is that? You heard from 3 social workers, My childrens first worker, my childrens second worker and my sons current worker. All stated that they would never consider me for re-evaluation. My question is why? Why was my standard of proof to prove I was fit out of reach? Is that what this act is all about? 

I read that if the child had not been adopted yet that this legislation can be used as it is to help give every opportunity for the biological parent and child to keep that family unit. It doesn’t say if a match is made then this can’t be used. It doesn’t say if they have been placed in a home it can’t be used. It clearly states if no adoption has occurred yet. Even with my daughters last worker clearly stating in her emails to my sons current worker that she was going to try and delay me we still filed before the adoption paperwork was filed. Even with both my daughters worker and my sons worker knowing that the act was coming into effect and even discussing the possibility of me applying for it if I learned about it, I still got it in before it was final. It took an ethical social worker, who had no part in this issue to tell us our rights. Why is that? Why was the workers, many workers, who were supposed to be looking out for the best interest of my children not stepping forward with this info? Why did they think it was still in the best interest of my family, all three siblings to add more attachment breaks deemed better? That does not show me that my childrens best interest was being met. That shows me that they were doing everything they can to ensure an adoption took place and they didn’t care how many attachments they broke to do it. They didn’t care about what was in my daughters best interest when they cut contact between her and her brothers. Who stands up for her? Not her social worker. Her social worker couldn’t even tell her that she was the one that made the decision to cut contact based on a what if. Yet workers then decided it is ok to falsify records and state that it was because she was coaching her brothers. Yet it is clearly shown that the decision was made because of a what if and not because of something actually happening. How is that in my daughters or her brothers best interest? How am I to tell her to trust in Children and Family Services or the courts if these glaring issues continue to be ignored and she is made to continue in her pain in missing her brothers with having done nothing wrong?

What is even worse is how is a worker suppose to determine what is in the best interest of the child when they don’t even go through the file, not even when evidence is brought to their attention that things were not done properly.  My childrens first worker admitted that within a few short months of my contact with my children being cut, and my mother being consider as a permanent placement, which is why they lied so much about me, that she then stopped working with the social workers, youth mentors and other community supports. Then he testified to what was clearly happening in that home. Not punitive punishments as so many court reports, assessments and so on state. ABUSE. There is a huge difference. A child does not walk away from a home at 3yrs old covered in multiple fading bruises from punitive punishments. That is abuse. A 3yr old child does not walk away from a home with deep tissue truama that is still very much there and not healed a full year later from punitive punishments. That is abuse. They were possible cigarette burns. THAT IS ABUSE. Making a 12yr old wear diapers to school is not punitive punishments. That is abuse. Making a child sit on a floor unless they are doing chores, eat from the floor while the family eats together, not allowed to be alone in the bathroom or shower alone over weeks at a time is not punitive punishments. THAT IS ABUSE. Why are these workers minimizing what was done to my children? What are they trying to hide? The truth? That they greatly misjudged me and what was truly happening all because I had a mental illness and had been the victim of domestic violence? If I did not seek so diligently to get help and to learn I could understand but they knew I had worked hard to show that I was fit, able and willing yet ignored it and worked hard to keep my children with their abuser. How is that justice for my family and how is that in the best interest of my 3 children at the time?

Yet upon removal of my children from my mothers home for exactly what I had been stating for years was happening did the worker call me? It was only 6 months after the PGO was granted. No permancy plan was in place at the time. So why was my sister considered but 0 attempt to re-evaluate me was offered? Why was the abusive grandparent allowed and considered for accuses, with clear evidence to all the abuse, yet I was not? I had not moved. We had choosen to stay in our home, as I testified, so that if we could some how prove we were fit that my sons would come home to a place that was familiar. So the department knew how to contact me. My number had not changed and they had my email. So why no contact to me? How is that working towards trying to keep a family together? In the Child Youth and Family Enhancement Act it clearly states that all attempts should be made to try and keep the contact between the child and the domestic violence victim parent together. Other then being prejudged based on my mothers lies and my mental illness no attempt was made prior or after the PGO to keep my children or my family together. This sickens me. Mentally ill does not mean unfit. Being blind does not mean you are unfit. Being in a wheel chair does not mean you are unfit. So why is it ok to prejudge someone based on a mental illness and require them to have to go above and beyond to prove they are fit? 

Moving forward in comes my childrens second social worker. My childrens next worker. She attested on the stand to not looking through the files at all other then to look for diagnoses. So why was she the one that wrote the adoption history for my children when she clearly stated she never even reviewed their file? Does that make any sense to anyone because it did not make any sense to me. Then she testifies on the stand that she was aware of the doctors report following the removal of my children from my mother. In fact the second one in May of 2012 she had requested the doctor to fill out. So why in the history of the adopted child does she clearly state that both the 2011 report and the 2012 report from the doctor had no concerns listed? How can she say and records show that she was aware of both reports BUT then go on to state that no concerns were noted. Yet the reports clearly list the major medical concerns and condition of my son upon removal from my mother and even a year later. If that is not clearly showing falsifying facts, facts that are being presented in provincial court as accurate and factual, then it shows a blatant disregard for making sure that the evidence in the files matches for court of law. Is it not concerning to anyone that so many documents show multiple issues with facts either altered, omitted or made completely up? Is that not some how a crime? especially since Child and Family Services are suppose to deal with facts and present facts to a court so the court can determine the fate of a child and family. If so many large glaring discrepancies were presented in a criminal case would it be ignored? I would hope not.

She also went on to state that it was not her job to get my sons therapy. Or my daughter for that matter. She was their case worker. She was suppose to decided what was in my childrens best interest. My sons were showing huge trauma based issues the entire time in foster care. I don’t have professional training for working with children and when I read the foster parents notes I could clearly see that they needed intense therapy. How was that in my children’s best interest to not receive any therapy? She then went on to testify that she had no obligation to re-evaluate me for my sons. None. She was an adoption worker and her job based on what she stated was to adopt my children out. So if that is the case then what is the point of this new legislation? Why does it not then state if the file is moved to a permanency worker then all consideration for re-evaluation is ended? Because it is meant to give the biological parents every opportunity to get their children back because the importance of the family unit is suppose to be paramount if there is no safety concerns.  She also continued to state that I did contact her as soon as my daughter had contacted us. One month after a match was made yet no meeting with my sons and the couple they were with was set up yet. Where was her obligation to consider all placements that would allow the children, 3 children not two, to stay together? Is there none? How is that in the best interest of the child? At that time I already had my third son, home was approved fit, had a community support worker in my home and Children and Family Services in my community showing no concerns. If she had re-evaluated me at that stage would we even be here today? 

She goes on to state that yes she and the couple did state to my daughter face to face, My daughter  was 14 at the time, that contact would never be cut. NEVER. And that is why she stated she choose the family. Because they had stated they would never cut contact. What did that do to my daughter? What did that promise say to my sons? Everyone is talking about the importance of attachments and the damage that can be caused if those attachments are broken. Yet no one stated that when I was given no options and contact was cut. Even though my oldest son had begged me prior to the PGO to never stop trying to bring him home. No one stated any of this when they decided to cut contact between my children. Why is it only now considered important? Why is the importance of attachment ONLY important when it means moving the child out of a possible adoptive home but not considered when cutting out mothers when there are no safety concerns or a sister from her brothers based on a what if? Is that looking out for the childs best interest? Or is that looking out for only the adopting homes best interest?

She then continues to state that I got my first visit in April with my daughter. Does anyone find it interesting that witnin 2 visits with my daughter and myself that my daughter was not being allowed to contact her brothers? Is this only a coincidence? Yet she at no point in her testimony admitted any knowledge of contact being cut or there being any concerns of my daughter supposedly coaching my sons. So many things already about the files and the case are just not matching up and I know I can’t be the only one seeing it. From there she states that visits with my daughter continued into the summer where my sons file moved to the city the adopting family is in and my daughters file to her final worker.

When my daughters last worker got on the stand she testified that she and her supervisor went through the entire file and in doing so decided to continue the reunification of my daughter and myself with the plan of my daughter moving home and the possibility of the PGO being rescinded. She also went on to state that she never saw any concerns that would have stopped her from continuing on this journey. She then states that it was a joint decision in December/January of 2013/2014 between herself and my sons current worker to cut contact because of my daughter giving negative messages to her brothers. Ok so now I am confused again. Many reports clearly show that contact was cut in spring/summer of 2013. Then a report written by my sons current worker of a phone call that my daughters last worker and she had on Dec 20, 2013 shows my daughters last worker clearly stating that she was the sole person to choose to cut the contact because she thought I was coaching my daughter and that the possibility that my daughter might in turn coach the boys might happen. First why is it when ever I have disclosed something or a concern to a social worker is it then automatically seen as coaching? Why when I disclose what my daughter tells me happened to her and I in turn tell the social worker is that not taken seriously and checked into? Why if my mother stated it was it deemed automatically true or if a foster home stated it it would be deemed true or if a social worker stated it then it is true but because I stated it then it must be coaching? That confuses me. Anyway she then goes on to state that the second reason she made the decision was because she thought the foster home my daughter was in was being too open with me. Ok so which is it? Did my daughter do it or not? If it is in a court document should it not be checked to be factual first? Why would workers feel the need to make up reasons as to why sibling access was cut? Yet she denies any knowledge of the phone call on that date. How can that be?

In that same report it comes out that she stated that at first they were blaming me for the abuse my children were enduring but that they are no longer doing that. So a worker who went through the entire file, the first to do so, is stating that I am no longer being looked at as the abuser of my children. Is this not huge? Should I not have been re-evaluated as soon as they changed their minds on that? She also says she had a discussion with my childrens first worker about the PGO. Stating that he, previous worker is now saying he thinks they did wrong by this family by seeking a PGO. Again if this was the case why did no one contact him to confirm? If this is the case why was I not being re-evaluated? If mistakes are made ok, people are human, but it is not ok if no one does anything to repair those mistakes and allows a family and multiple children to continue to suffer the loss of each other. At the end of the report she finishes it with “the assessor who was initially involved with this family and then apprehension, reportedly is now stating they made the wrong decision and if they could go back they wouldn’t make the same decision to permanently remove the kids.” AGAIN WHY DID NO ONE CONTACT THE SUPERVISOR WHO OVER SAW THE REMOVAL AND PGO OF MY CHILDREN TO CONFIRM THIS? Should that not be deemed important if the main workers involved in getting the PGO now in hindsight, and the abuse that was really occurring in my mothers home, has made them realize a huge mistake was made. Is there no obligation for the department if they make such huge mistakes to do all they can to repair it and re-evaluate the children and the parents home? What does ignoring these concerns tell families and the public about how Children and Family Services works to keep families together?

She then continues testify that no concerns arose, that I did contact her in May of 2014 for the forms for the new legislation yet no mention at all that she contacted my sons current worker to let her know right after what I was doing. No mention of her statements to attempt to delay me. Is that what a caseworker is suppose to do to show the best interest of a child? Try and delay a parent who is fit and who has been begging worker after worker to re-evaluate her and reunit her family? Is that what the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act states for them to do? Yet she stated there is no obligation for her to inform me of the new legislation. Which I found confusing as well since the Worker here who is a 26yr vetran who we are working with currently had stated in his testimony that he was told it is their obligation to inform birth parents to give them the opportunity to try and keep their family together. So which one is right? Even if there is no law, I then put the question to the court which one is ethical? Why was so much effort and help given to my mother and the adopting family to keep my children with them but little to none offered to me and my children to help us stay together? 

She then continue to testify that my daughter did move home in June of 2014 and the PGO was rescinded in Dec of 2014 and that it was agreed to be rescinded as no concerns were noted. During this entire time up to June of 2014, so 3 yrs from removal from my mothers home, through countless social workers, my sons did not get any counseling for the trauma and abuse that they had endured. 18 months of which was with this couple. How is that in the best interest of my sons? Why did it take so long? Each child expert did agree that making a child wait for therapy for 3+ years was concerning and they should have been in child lead play therapy from the beginning as the longer it takes for it to start the higher the risk of long term issues. During those 3+ who was looking out for any of my childrens best interests? No therapy, contact cut from a healthy and fit parent with no safety concerns to do so, forced to continue to reside in a home that was abusing them for at least another 6 months following the PGO, contact then cut with a sibling and no explanation to any child of what they did wrong or why contact was cut, no chance even offered to say good-bye. At the time of initial disclosure it was June 26, 2014. My childrens best interest were not being met at that time. And had not been met since they started being abused in my mothers home and no worker would even consider investigating any concerns I brought to their attention about it. And now from June 2014- Sept 2015 I am just suppose to trust that what I am being told is true? And now I am suppose to trust that my sons are getting they needs met when it comes to therapy and so on? The need of contact with their sibling is still not being corrected and no explanation or so on given to any of the children. They are just suppose to continue to accept this loss of each other. Could you remove one of your children from the other siblings, give no explanation and expect them to forget that other sibling even existed? Could you do it based on a what if? Is that attachment not important as well? Why is the only attachment deemed important the one from my sons to the couple? Why is that the only consideration the case workers have taken? These are not puppies from a litter to give away. These are children. A sibling group of 3. Continuing the separation of all 3 is not in the best interest of any child. 

Lets move on to my next witness. My first community support  worker. She testified that when I got in contact and applied to them the reasons I did so included my worry about my baby taken upon birth because of the previous PGO on my other 3. Should a mother be scared of Child and Family Services? Should they not see them as a support instead of something to be scared of? But she also testified that we wanted a mandated reporter in the home to prove we were fit to be able to get my sons home. Further showing that Having our youngest was because we wanted to prove our fitness. At the time of signing up with them I had no idea my children were not in my mothers care. I had no idea they were in foster care, no permancy plan in place though. Yet I was diligently working on my end to prove my fitness in a way that would not risk my mental health. She also went on to testify to how I was to really work with, how my home really was, what my parenting knowledge really was as she stated I even helped change the baby curriculum for their program with the information I brought to them and that I continue throughout the time we worked together to provide them with parenting stratagies that they even asked me for to pass on to other families they worked with. She also testified to our willingness to do anything she suggested or ask even if we were terrified of the possible outcome of losing my new son by going to the Children and Family Services in our community to let them know about the pregnancy. She also attested to why we waited to contact my childrens worker about re-evaluation till after my youngest had his first 2 week check up at the Children’s hospital for his cleft. She attested to how and when I found out about the removal of my children from my mothers home and how it was through a concern community member, not a worker from Children and Family Services. Why did it take almost a year and a half and a concerned community member to come and tell me. How is that looking out for my children’s best interest? Especially when my home was big enough and safe enough for all 3 of my children? Why was it preferred to split them up? She continued to testify to all the discussions we had weekly about my sons and what the community offered for supports for their needs and that these were ongoing discussions for the entire 2yrs she was our worker. She testified to the knowledge of all the social workers I have repeatedly contacted begging to be re-evaluated. And that at no time in the entire two years we worked with her did she ever feel there was a concern about our home or our parenting. She attested to the meeting with the Children and Family Services worker we are working with here and my very physical reaction to finding out the news of new legislation. Along with testifying to how quickly I filed. How many parents with no legal help work so diligently and for so long to prove their fitness, to fight to keep a promise to their children(My oldest son and my daughter both asked me to not stop, my daughter after getting back in contact with me). I was told by so many to just give up. But is that the message that Children and Family Services wants to send to parents? To just give up after a PGO is granted? If that is the case why the new legislation?

Then next comes my daughter. She was a victim and survivor of the abuse of my mother over a long period of time. But did she appear to be a child with no self confidence? When she came to our home, after being in the foster placement for 4yrs(2 1/2yrs of which there was no contact with me) she had no self confidence, as she testified. She was scared of going to school. Scared to leave the house. Scared to get involved. Now? A year after being returned home did she appear to be any of those things? I don’t think so. My daughter is a fashion leader in her school now, she has several friends, loves her part time job, loves going to school and wants to be a writter and help other children who have been abused to find their voice. This is a child who had no contact with me for several years. A child that had been in a long term placement and had had emotional issues and other problems while in that home. Yet upon coming home in a slow transition, with the right supports in place she has totally changed and is a confident young lady who has realistic goals for her future. Does that not indicate that children can successfully transition home, after a long term placement and no contact? She also testified to missing her brothers. She is part of this whole equation whether the department wants to recognize it or not. Her feelings and needs are equally as important as my sons. And she needs her brothers in her life. She was so concerned about losing them from her life that she asked her second social worker to promise her and the couple who has my sons to promise her contact would not be cut but that is exactly what was done within months of placement. Why was her best interests not being considered? Why is the attachment of these siblings not seen as important in any way?

Next came my current community support worker also testifying to how she has observed us parenting, how ready our home is, our consistent conversations about how to best help my sons upon them returning home. She also attested to(Vetted out as it speaks to our current journey)  She also attested to how we are always asking for advice from those we work with to continue to learn. And she attested to how we really are to work with.

The next day was the two people who have supervised our parenting all summer, who Children and Family Services here contracts to supervise families and report and concerns. who both attested to observing us all summer long and that no concerns ever arose.  (Vetted our as it speaks to our current journey)  My sons current worker has never been in our home yet the Children and Family Services worker here who we are working with testified that he knows he is welcome in our home any time and has been here multiple times and witnessed us parenting with no concerns. So I will quote from another judge. You can’t have it both ways. Either she is fit, able and willing or she isn’t. Children Services here says we are. So why have so many others not considered us at all for re-evaluation?

The next witness was one of our friends. He attested to us not ever giving up in the entire time he has known us in our fight to bring my sons home. He also attested to how involved we are in our community. How we helped 20 families last year for thanksgiving with hampers of food. How at Christmas I organized several people in making food and gift hampers for 50 families. This is with PTSD and Agoraphobia. And how I encourage my daughter to be a part of it.

Then came the Children and Family Services worker who we are working with here.  A 26yr vetran of working in the Children’s Services area. He testified to no concerns of our home and parenting, how we really are to work with, how open we are, how we are always asking questions and always asking how to do things better. He testified to what he was told about the obligation to tell parents about the childrens first act. He also testified that it was part of his job as a permany worker to go through the file to find out what was in the best interest of the child. He testified to getting our criminal records checks and that both of us were clear for the vunerable sectors search. He testified how he saw how things were going and also that for children to have over night visits that providing a bed and personal space is one of the required needs. 

Next was the first witness for the department. The lady who did our parental assessment. In the paperwork she passed me in every area for having the ability to parent. Except for the attachment part. Her job was to evaluate me for my abilities to parent and not on the attachment of my sons to me or me to my sons. Yet in her testimony it came across to me that all she wanted to do was focus on the attachment. If the attachment part is the the only issue to consider in all of this then why does it not say in the Childrens First Act that part B is only to focus on the attachment of the child to the current caregivers? It doesn’t. It says to look at the best interest of the child and attachment is only one part of that equation as testified by my sons assessor and my sons current therapist this week. It is important but it is not the only point to consider in the over all best interest of the child. Regardless though the parenting assessment shows I can parent. I met all the criteria to be able to parent, my home is big enough, we can financially do it, their medical needs would be met, we have the community supports in place and ready.

Then it was me. I am not going to go over all that I testified too as I think it was covered quite well by all my previous witnesses and myself. But after all I did, all the proffessionals I brought in have I not met point A? Have I not shown that I have been preparing from prior to the PGO being granted to also meet the best interests of my sons upon the possibility of them moving home? If your children were kept from you and a PGO was granted on what you knew was misinformation and false facts would you just give up on your three children your honor? Or if you only had my education and funds would you continue to find a way, that would not risk your mental health, to bring them home? To keep that promise to your then 6yr old son and your now 16yr old daughter? Is there a time limit on how long you would fight to repair your family? Especially if you had never stopped trying to show you were fit?

After that was my landlord. He attested to giving us permission to build the extra room in our home and how we are as tenants and how we have kept the home over the 5+yrs we have rented it. And how we picked that home for location to schools and the size to fit everyone. Then my longest friend (over 20yrs) testified to how it was while I was a victim of domestic violence but how I still made sure my home was clean, my kids fed and clothed and parented. He also testified to as soon as I cut out my abusive ex, was off the meds that had affected me so badly that was being prescribed by a doctor, that I turned my whole life around. That he has been in our home many times and how it appears, how happy the children are and how I have helped those in my community. And that my only desire from the entire time he has known me was to be a wife and a mother.

Next came my sons current worker. She testified that it was not her job to go through the entire file to check for facts even when my daughters last worker contacted her and stated to her that I am no longer being looked at as the one who abused my children. That they didn’t see my real motivation to cutting our my mother from my life, that there was a lot of miscommunication and misinformation when if came to what was really happening in my mothers home and the behaviors my children were showing during that time. So let me get this straight. Workers can admit to huge mistakes in judgments of a parent that led to a PGO but no worker after a PGO is granted is required to correct those mistakes in judgments by reuniting the family? So we all suffer because a worker didn’t do his due diligence for the rest of our lives? How is that in anyones best interest. My son thinks I could not take care of him and that he does not see me because I fought too much with his dad. How is that ok for him to think when that is not the case at all. I was off the meds for a year and a half prior to the PGO being granted. We had a fit home that entire time and still do. We had access to all the community supports we are now using at that time as well. The records, testimonies and so on are showing there are huge discrepancies. Glaring things left out, alter or just made up in documents used for court and all of this is ok? If I brought forward the whole file I can assure you that this is only the tip of the iceberg but I was told I was only allowed to address things from the PGO being granted to now.

She also testified that I did ask her repeatedly to re-evaluate me, to re-establish contact between my sons and their sister but that she would never consider me. Why would no worker consider re-evaluating me? I was no addict, I wasn’t a criminal, I wasn’t an abuser. All they had was that I have a mental illness. Does a mental illness make a parent unfit automatically? Have I appeared at any time in this court room as someone so mentally ill as to be unable to parent? She testified to her emails and records as being correct but no memory to most of them. Yet these show the behaviors of my son had no gone away and were very much present. It was shown that my son had made multiple requests to be returned to me yet no one told the therapist and no one told my sons assessor. Why was this desire not brought to their attention? It was shown that even when she was given information to show glaring issues in the records and files that she in no way attempted to verify if they could possibly be correct and if they were to even attempt to reunit my family. 

Next came the childrens therapist and I must say I really like her. She attested to how my children are doing in therapy, how she conducts therapy and so on. She attested to the bond she was seeing between my sons and their caregivers but she also attested to the fact that nothing is 100% assured and she could not say that she knew 100% for sure that returning my sons to my care with a slow transition and the right supports in place would cause them irreparable harm. She said that there is a likely chance but when in all of this has my children or myself shown that we fall within a box of expectations. So many had expectations of what would happen if my daughter returned and that was wrong. So many had expectations’ that I could not parent at all. That was shown wrong as well. We keep showing people that when given the chance and the right supports that we can blow those expectations out of the water and really surprise people. Not everyone fits in a box. One thing I do know from her testimony is that if my children are returned to me I want her to recommend a therapist closer to our area and that I would enjoy working with her. 

Next was my sons assessor. He spoke of the attachment that is there an developing. He spoke of how important that is and his concerns if that is suddenly cut. Yet he also stated it is like a crystal ball in predicting what could happened. He could not guarantee that with a slow transition, proper therapy and community supports that my children would suffer irreparable harm. He also stated RAD can be over come. He also stated that he found it very concerning how much information was completely omitted, changed or so on. Very concerning he stated as I listed off the biggest issues that had gotten on the record. He also stated no one mention my sons desire to move home and that he could not answer the question of the attachment of my sons to me as he has never met me or observed us together. But he also stated clearly that attachment is just one piece of the puzzle that the judge has to look at in determining this whole situation. Just one piece.

So if the only piece the department has is the attachment and no one can speak of the attachment that might be there from my sons to myself, yet I have passed in every other area, proven through professionals over several years of how fit I am and how much I have prepared, show over and over again to beg for re-evaluation, proven that workers were not doing their due diligence in going through the file to check info and yet writing court documents as facts, provided to professionals who were determining things for this trial as not getting accurate information and so on. Does that not clearly show that best interest over time of my sons was not being met I was doing all I could to meet them if just one person would consider me for re-evaluation? 

Have I not proven point B in several ways? I can admit I do not have the knowledge or know how of the lawyers here. Yet I did find one case that was similar to my own out of BC. In this case that was before the Supreme Court of BC J.P was able to show that the department of family Services prejudge her and that the department didn’t do their due diligence in investigating her claims that her ex husband was abusing the children( which is what was happening with my mother abusing my children while in her care). The director viewed the ongoing complaints by the mother to be malicious and part of her mental illness and stated that was a sign of her mental illness and inability to parent the children. The director then led that Deputy Director to believe that JP was suffering from mental illness or distress so significant that she was a risk to herself or her children.(which is that happened with me. There was no way I could prove I was fit. Nothing I could have said or done that would be believed.)

An apprehension order was then granted on inaccurate and misleading factual information(In my case it was the PGO). The report was prepared in a manner that was inconsistent with the directors legal  obligation to make full and frank disclosure, and it denied the plaintiffs procedural fairness and fundamental justice.(Have I not shown over and over again the misinformation, omitting of facts and so on in many documents and some even for court that would mislead the court to believe one thing over the actual truth? 

A Mr. S knew of those errors. His subordinates involved in drafting of the report to the court also knew of some of them and ought to have know of the others. They failed to ensure the truth of the information provided to the provincial court. (Have I not also show this same thing over and over again, even in reports sent to the people making assessments about me and my children).

By February of 2010, nearly all the social workers involved with the case had determined that the children should be returned to the care of their father(in my case they wanted the children to reside with my mother and this is evident throughout the file) and they actively supported B’G’s claim for sole custody. As they did for my mother.

The children had several placements. From one aunt, to then an uncles and then a foster placement for 2yrs. At the first trial in May 2012 it was shown the director stated there was no merit to the abuse allegations made my JP and that sole custody should be given to the father. That JP was too mentally ill to parent. But during the trial it came out that JP’s allegations were correct and the director changed her direction and stated the children should be returned to her care. Even though the trial was still on going a reunification plan was written up so the children could reunit in a healthy way. JP was able to show during the first trial about the prejudice and the facts that the director was not doing their due diligence. I was not so lucky during my PGO.

But here I have clearly shown that to be the case. Workers have out right stated there was nothing I could have said or done to have them consider me for my sons. I have shown that facts were being altered, investigations not being done at all, my children required to suffer in silence all because of people prejudging me on my mental illness and being a victim of domestic violent(JP also suffered from domestic violence from her partner as well). That facts were being completely omitted. I have shown that for many years my sons best interests were not being met. Now we are here. Now the question is, in light of everything, not just the attachment(and even their witnesses had to state there could still be attachment there from my sons to me) have I not clearly shown point A and point B? Are we not that rare case that has shown that a return of my children, which is what this legislation is for, is the only outcome that would be in the best interest of all 3 children and my family. 

In all of this, and sorry it was so long, I think it is clear that the only decision that is in everyones best interest is the rescinding of the PGO, getting a clear slow transition plan in place, setting up the therapies for my family and children and arranging the community supports needed to give them all the support they need to be reunited with their family. "
THat is it.  Hopefully it answers some questions and helps to put many of the pieces together. 

No comments:

Post a Comment