Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Padded behinds and cotton wool brains
OK, so last week’s meeting with the social workers was a bit of a farce, although I’m sure it didn’t seem so on their end. They wanted to communicate their position, and the wronged party wanted their position heard, and I could see the transmissions going back and forth [from communication theory: the communication is only complete when the transmission has been heard and confirmed - one-way transmission should not be confused with communication] but not actually making the loop.
They seemed way too concerned that they were being tape-recorded. Hell, I think that THEY should be the ones doing the tape-recording. You know, those messages you get when you call a customer service desk: This call may be monitored for quality control purposes. I think that the Ministry should be required by law to record ALL their conversations with clients. Not to protect the social workers, but to protect the clients. And for that very reason, that’s why they would never do it. They were very clear that there are privacy issues - which, in the Ministry’s case, doubles for issues known in the vernacular as CYA. So that’s how the meeting started.
The Ministry’s position, in a nutshell: Here is how the court proceedings will go, and you’re going to lose. It’s a tough spot, and we’re sorry you’re in it, but the court will rule that the child is going with his birth dad and we can’t do anything about that, so face facts and let’s get down to scheduling for when the child is taken away from you because it is happening.
The mom’s position, in a nutshell: You created the problem, you fix it. My family - me, my spouse, this little guy, and my other child - shouldn’t be victimized because of your agency’s incompetencies for the past 16 months. I don’t care about your procedures, just fix it. My heart is breaking here because I can foresee the emotional damage to all parties involved, and I can’t stand that you’re sitting across the table, emotionless and worried about your forms and bureaucratic nonsense while your own agency’s actions caused this in the first place.
[Aside: I noticed that in response to a statement I made about possible family breakdown in response to this botched-up situation and potential lawsuit, the social workers made notes, which I think said something like “offer counselling” or similar (it was hard to read surreptitiously upside down) as if they think that some little checklist can fix the mess they made. It might assuage their guilt, but I doubt it will do much else except let them go back to their office and sigh a breath of relief that they can move on and ruin someone else’s life.]
At one point, the social workers asked for a schedule, which I thought quite laughable. The mom couldn’t seem to make the point that the request was a bit absurd, so I took a shot at getting through to the social workers. I said something to the effect of: We can draw up a schedule, sure. But let’s be honest - it’s only so that you can tick off “done” on your little checklist. Because the child is going to a home that’s a 14-hour drive away, into a home with another child in the same age range, where the parents will be caring for the kids in shifts while working shift work which is, in effect, single parenting. I’ve been there, done that. I had two little grandchildren - and I am super organized - and the schedule that worked so well for me with one completely went out the window with two. The schedule will last for three days, tops, and then it will be all the parent-at-home can do to keep up with the two of them. So I can draw something up that shows the child has music play from 10-12, and lunch at 12, and nap from 12:30-2:00, but honestly, the kid is going to have the jolt of his life to fit into whatever routine will work, given one adult and two toddlers, so who are you deluding, other than yourselves, when you ask for a schedule? Seriously, do these people have children of their own (that weren’t nannied through infancy)? Do they have any connection to the real world?