A group of parents demanding more openness and account-ability from Alberta's child welfare system protested in front of Calgary's courthouse on Friday.
The 13 recommendations I posed to Minister Janis Tarchuk on January 4, 2007 based upon personal observations within one month following the death of my child, Samantha Martin. And, perhaps most poinantly, 3 weeks PRIOR to the death of the little boy known only as K.P. to the Public. Regulations which are sorely in need of review and must be changed immediately:
Separation of children with disabilities from those in need of protective services. Children’s Services has little to no place in this venue. Though governments have maintained a division exists, it clearly does not. Stigma is definitely attached to the department (personal experience finds this is not strictly public attitude, but includes the demeanor of certain caseworkers within the department of Children’s Services as well!) In speaking with families, I find those who seek assistance for their children with special needs continue a pattern of systematic failure: Service is offered, but in conjunction with stipulations over relinquishing custody, temporary or otherwise in exchange for help. THIS CHANGES NOW! If a child is served by Children’s Services – disabled or otherwise – a parent must be permitted the right to ask and receive a second medical opinion. Over and again we teach our children to listen to their instincts though, as parents, we are undermined, discouraged or repressed from seeking the same. ZERO TOLERANCE FOR RISKING NEGLIGENCE OF HEALTH! a) Consultation in any medical management such as surgery and the commencement or stopping of prescription medication; particularly stimulants for attention disorders. b) Clear definition and restrictions in regards to who administers these. a) Any child within Children’s Services who receives medical care and education will need a record of event – hospital, medi-centre, physician, dentist, therapist, and report card/IPP – to follow into their government file. This will serve 2 purposes: One, that child will have a record compiled unique to them to access if and when needed. Two, any patterns of suspicious injury will be evident if kept as a unit since it is possible for a foster parent to take a child to one hospital for one instance, then to a different one for a similar injury to avoid inquiry. THIS CANNOT CONTINUE! b) A new position should be created to ensure that someone is actually viewing the child’s records and not simply filing pertinent information away without study! Children’s Services mandates visitation by caseworkers on a regular basis, yet I know this is not necessarily true. The reality is visits rest upon the discretion of the caseworker and their caseload. THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE! Visits should be random and frequent enough to ensure that a child is healthy in care no matter how well-represented a family may appear to some onlookers. No one should be free from accountability. Accountability for ALL injuries received in foster care. Foster families must be willing to support the children in their care; this includes the natural family as much as possible. If there are indications of abuse of the relationship: Bullying and blackmail over visitation privileges - or otherwise - should result in penalty. Any subsequent event can be construed as failure and the union terminated.
Ultimately, fostering privileges should be forfeited when lack of commitment to the child is founded. Children in care who receive extra funds from relatives – separate from maintenance - must be banked for them - unless specified otherwise - to accumulate for their adult requirements NOT consumed by the foster family. Similarly, if and when a child leaves foster care, his/her belongings (toys, clothes, photographs and the like) must accompany them and should not be retained by the foster family under any circumstances. Fines should be in place for theft of a child’s property. Clear definitions – in writing – to determine which parties are responsible for what duties and the restrictions imposed. For instance, visitation, education, and obtaining permission for cutting hair or making any changes to a child’s body. Legislation changes within other areas of government as they connect to Children’s Services. Specifically a) AADL (Alberta Aids to Daily Living): IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON WHO SIGNS OUT A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT TO RETURN IT. Individuals who benefit from the use of equipment, such as a wheelchair, may not be in any position to advocate for their selves; therefore, should not be penalized if the unit goes ‘missing.’ b) Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation needs to work in conjunction with other governing agencies to ensure that a person with a disability is prioritized. In the case of a disability placard: The card must travel with the intended party. Enforcement of ownership must be protected and should it be violated, the person with disability must reign first by allotting issuance of a second placard to ensure safe travel. Accountability of those in Children’s Services who fail to place a child first or causes them to come to harm through neglect of their duty to protect the child. Though there is clearly a deficit in the area of child care options for children with disabilities, all children deserve to be safe, free from neglect, and be loved. Nothing less is acceptable. Foster homes that are proved to have caused a child to be endangered and/or have misrepresented themselves: Accepting more children than outlined in legislation should be forbidden from fostering. Any false statements of a child’s health or repressing of growth or developmental potential must result in investigation and termination when founded. Persons who come forward with information indicating abuse/neglect must be protected from retribution: Though reporting is mandatory, people live in fear of loss of career and financial collapse so remain quiet. Frankly, this behavior is understandable if the Department of Children’s Services protects its own members by refusing to acknowledge or punish mismanagement.
**K.P. is more than a set of initials; he was a little boy with a name and face and loved ones left behind; as is the case with ALL children who die under Ministry Direction.
His identity IS well-known to many so let's just stop the secrecy and allow his death be one with the dignity of recognition.
The 13 recommendations I posed to Minister Janis Tarchuk on January 4, 2007 based upon personal observations within one month following the death of my child, Samantha Martin. And, perhaps most poinantly, 3 weeks PRIOR to the death of the little boy known only as K.P. to the Public. Regulations which are sorely in need of review and must be changed immediately:
ReplyDeleteSeparation of children with disabilities from those in need of protective services. Children’s Services has little to no place in this venue. Though governments have maintained a division exists, it clearly does not. Stigma is definitely attached to the department (personal experience finds this is not strictly public attitude, but includes the demeanor of certain caseworkers within the department of Children’s Services as well!) In speaking with families, I find those who seek assistance for their children with special needs continue a pattern of systematic failure: Service is offered, but in conjunction with stipulations over relinquishing custody, temporary or otherwise in exchange for help. THIS CHANGES NOW!
If a child is served by Children’s Services – disabled or otherwise – a parent must be permitted the right to ask and receive a second medical opinion. Over and again we teach our children to listen to their instincts though, as parents, we are undermined, discouraged or repressed from seeking the same. ZERO TOLERANCE FOR RISKING NEGLIGENCE OF HEALTH!
a) Consultation in any medical management such as surgery and the commencement or stopping of prescription medication; particularly stimulants for attention disorders. b) Clear definition and restrictions in regards to who administers these.
a) Any child within Children’s Services who receives medical care and education will need a record of event – hospital, medi-centre, physician, dentist, therapist, and report card/IPP – to follow into their government file. This will serve 2 purposes: One, that child will have a record compiled unique to them to access if and when needed. Two, any patterns of suspicious injury will be evident if kept as a unit since it is possible for a foster parent to take a child to one hospital for one instance, then to a different one for a similar injury to avoid inquiry. THIS CANNOT CONTINUE! b) A new position should be created to ensure that someone is actually viewing the child’s records and not simply filing pertinent information away without study!
Children’s Services mandates visitation by caseworkers on a regular basis, yet I know this is not necessarily true. The reality is visits rest upon the discretion of the caseworker and their caseload. THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE! Visits should be random and frequent enough to ensure that a child is healthy in care no matter how well-represented a family may appear to some onlookers. No one should be free from accountability.
Accountability for ALL injuries received in foster care.
Foster families must be willing to support the children in their care; this includes the natural family as much as possible. If there are indications of abuse of the relationship: Bullying and blackmail over visitation privileges - or otherwise - should result in penalty. Any subsequent event can be construed as failure and the union terminated.
Continued:
Continuation:
ReplyDeleteUltimately, fostering privileges should be forfeited when lack of commitment to the child is founded.
Children in care who receive extra funds from relatives – separate from maintenance - must be banked for them - unless specified otherwise - to accumulate for their adult requirements NOT consumed by the foster family. Similarly, if and when a child leaves foster care, his/her belongings (toys, clothes, photographs and the like) must accompany them and should not be retained by the foster family under any circumstances. Fines should be in place for theft of a child’s property.
Clear definitions – in writing – to determine which parties are responsible for what duties and the restrictions imposed. For instance, visitation, education, and obtaining permission for cutting hair or making any changes to a child’s body.
Legislation changes within other areas of government as they connect to Children’s Services. Specifically a) AADL (Alberta Aids to Daily Living): IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON WHO SIGNS OUT A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT TO RETURN IT. Individuals who benefit from the use of equipment, such as a wheelchair, may not be in any position to advocate for their selves; therefore, should not be penalized if the unit goes ‘missing.’ b) Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation needs to work in conjunction with other governing agencies to ensure that a person with a disability is prioritized. In the case of a disability placard: The card must travel with the intended party. Enforcement of ownership must be protected and should it be violated, the person with disability must reign first by allotting issuance of a second placard to ensure safe travel.
Accountability of those in Children’s Services who fail to place a child first or causes them to come to harm through neglect of their duty to protect the child. Though there is clearly a deficit in the area of child care options for children with disabilities, all children deserve to be safe, free from neglect, and be loved. Nothing less is acceptable.
Foster homes that are proved to have caused a child to be endangered and/or have misrepresented themselves: Accepting more children than outlined in legislation should be forbidden from fostering. Any false statements of a child’s health or repressing of growth or developmental potential must result in investigation and termination when founded.
Persons who come forward with information indicating abuse/neglect must be protected from retribution: Though reporting is mandatory, people live in fear of loss of career and financial collapse so remain quiet. Frankly, this behavior is understandable if the Department of Children’s Services protects its own members by refusing to acknowledge or punish mismanagement.
**K.P. is more than a set of initials; he was a little boy with a name and face and loved ones left behind; as is the case with ALL children who die under Ministry Direction.
ReplyDeleteHis identity IS well-known to many so let's just stop the secrecy and allow his death be one with the dignity of recognition.