Bailie.com

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

The mess called Ministry of Children and Family Development of BC

There is a messy situation going on right now, around the bungling of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and then - when they realized their procedural bungling - how they are ready to sacrifice the well-being of two children because they have rules to follow. And while they know their voice is powerful and could influence the outcome by making taking a stand that is in the best interest of the child, they are, instead, taking a stand that is in the best interest of the Ministry.

Of course, they’re claiming that the rule is in the best interest of the child, but when you actually talk to the folks at the Director level about their reasoning, you get “juicer” answers. (Juicers are what, in the HR industry they call companies that treat people like widgets. These companies are intereted in production, so they hire people, squeeze everything they can out of them, and then toss them out and get new ones, to keep the production line moving.) The Director of Child Welfare, for example, told me that the Ministry has a “policy” (I put this in quotation marks because a policy is supposed to be a guidelines that has exceptions made when the policy doesn’t fit, but she kept talking about it s a hard and fast rule) that all children are better off in the care of a biological parent. One her reasons is that “otherwise, you’d have all these kids stuck in foster care.” Ah yes, if the production line stops, it would cost the Ministry a lot of money. So we have to move these widgets out of the system to a parent. If we call it “in the best interest of the child”, we can save the province lots of money.

Never mind that in some cases, the child will be heartbroken to be ripped away from the only family it has known. Never mind that the child risks developing attachment disorder - and later taxing the social system as home becomes various juvenile detention centers, and later on, the adult penal system. Never mind that the families left behind (in some cases, having been promised that the placement was foster-to-adopt, where they’ve become firmly attached to the the child) are heartbroken, and the Ministry has also broken the hearts of the children that they may have even previously placed in that very home.

No, the Ministry has widgets to move along, to get out of the system, and when they’ve goofed up - say, when they’ve sent a two-day-old child home with a family and basically said, “here’s your son, take him home” and then when he’s almost a year old, the Ministry comes back and says, “oops, there’s a problem” and “well, we never really said he was yours” and “don’t go getting a lawyer, now, because it will piss us off and we’ll take the kid away from you” and at the line staff level (where no one ever, ever, ever takes the blame for anything), they say, “we go home and cry at night, this is such a travesty but there’s nothing we can do” and “this is beyond unethical and it’s so awful but this happens sometimes” and such inane, condescending platitudes that it makes me wonder how taxpayers can support such a corrupt system and let them get away with it.

It shocks me that people who can’t tell the difference between rules and guidelines, between client interest and system cover-your-ass thinking can rise to director level. It disgusts me that social work supervisors use intimidation tactics to keep a client population (adoptive and foster parents) in line. It appalls me that they blatantly manipulate the people they are supposed to serve, and tell outright lies when it suits their purposes. (In the eleven years I’ve been dealing with the Ministry, I’ve caught them out so many times, this allegation is not lightly made.) What’s more is their unwillingness to break ranks and fix themselves - they cover for one another’s incompetencies, and the good ones, who have the brains and willingness to try to make a difference end up leaving to become consultants, or blacklisted and having to find work in another province, or having a breakdown and going on stress leave. A strong few leave and become Ministry combatants - such as lawyers who take on the Ministry and all their insanity.

Everywhere I go, I hear stories about the Ministry, and not one of them good. Walking the hall in my office building, a CEO from down the hall asks how I’ve been, and I say I’m frustrated because of “an entanglement with the Ministry” and his reply is, “They seem to screw up a lot, don’t they?” A technology VP associate of mine, as it turns out, has his own entanglement with the Ministry, and he relays that he and his [also professional] wife are getting “sleazy” vibes from Ministry staff. The stories compound - everywhere I turn, the Ministry has involved themselves, and the way they’re handling things is an embarrassment to the province and to the most vulnerable citizens of the province.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Social worker arrogance in British Columbia

Was just told that three years ago, when my granddaughters had been moved into the adoption stream, where they were adopted by a fabulous couple who have made us part of their extended family, the girls’ profiles had a note added to them in the “Special Needs” section. This is the section where you list the burdens that prospective parents should know about, such as Autism, ADHD, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and so on. Evidently, the social workers had labelled the girls as having “grandmothers.”

So ... advocates or burdens? I suppose that advocating for our children’s well-being impedes social workers from operate their little fiefdomswith impunity, and as such, we are burdens to them. What saddens me is that so few children have such advocates.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Family drama strikes

I haven’t been posting lately because I’ve been too caught up in trying to support family members who are facing a heart-wrenching dilemma. I can’t go into it (yet) and hope I will never have to go into it in a public space like this, though I will if I must.  But let’s just say that there is a certain government ministry, that I’ve been dealing with for some ten years now, that is once again showing me how their need to cover their own bureaucractic bungling surpasses (and by far) the emotional needs of a very vulnerable client population. If you know anything about my life, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about. Fortunately, I’ve learned a thing or two from my three previous dealings with them: (1) document everything because they will “lose” things when it suits them, (2) make secret tape recordings of conversations with them because they will lie when it suits them, and (3) be prepared to have to think for them, because those that aren’t busy scheming won’t be able to reason their way out of a paper bag. (Email me for a link to my old blog for some rollicking good laughs about where your taxpayer dollars go!)

Gentle readers, in anticipation of your next question, yes, I was led to believe that there was a new sheriff in town who was changing things. No, I haven’t heard back yet. No, I am not ready to sit back and let this travesty of justice happen without exposing some pretty embarrassing incompetencies. Stay tuned - it ain’t over till the fat lady sings. And if this goes on much longer, I’ll be much fatter (though I doubt my singing will improve much - I’ll still be offkey!).