NOT THE END YET

Not the end yet

Hi:

Even though, in late November, our lawyer FAXed back our requests for changes to the CAS's initial set of supervision conditions, our social worker delivered court papers to us today which reveal that the only changes made to date are additions. She also gave us some more information regarding decisions made by the Child Protection Team (CPT) at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO).

The court papers portray us as parents who have some hope, but only because the CAS has involved itself in our lives, because a parenting course instructor visits us every week, and because we attend the bi-weekly sessions of the parenting course she teaches. I believe our social worker no longer thinks that we've been all that bad, but I also believe her when she says that, being so near the bottom of the CAS organizational structure, her recommendations aren't given all that much weight. I believe that her personal perspective has changed for the following reasons:

+   She no longer defends the CAS when I challenge its methods.
+   She no longer speaks patronizingly towards us.
+   She wrote a rather favourable affidavit for the court papers.
+   She permitted me to overhear her side of a phone conversation which revealed that her own marriage may itself not be operating as a CAS-acceptable level of functionality.

The court papers contain a claim, without any supporting evidence, that I, at some unknown time in the past, accused my wife of abuse and neglect. I don't recall, or even believe, that I've ever done that. It may be that, during the initial months of her depression (a few years ago) before I recognized what was going on, I may have said something which could have been interpreted that way. I know that I have, on occasion, recounted a few incidents related to her withdrawal from those nasty psychiatric drugs which should never have been given to her, but, whenever I've done that, I've always been very careful to attribute them to the drugs and/or to the withdrawal, and never to her personally, since both were making her behave in an extremely uncharacteristic way.

The court papers claim that several of our children, while in foster care, rolled up into a fetal position, became angry, and discussed being hit.  Our children acknowledge having been angry (at the CAS), but neither rolling up into a fetal position (even after I demonstrated the position) nor discussing being hit. When I mentioned the last point, i.e. discussing being hit, they just burst out into laughter and declare that the CAS doesn't know what it's talking about.

The court papers claim that our children's behaviour, during visits, at times became unmanageable, and that we, the parents, had difficulty setting limits. I can explain this one. Our children displayed all kinds of new bad behaviours which were a result of their having been abducted by the CAS. In some cases, we didn't know what to do. In others, we figured that it was better to do nothing, fearing a worse reaction, and to thereby save the rest of the visit. In yet others, we were reluctant to do what we really should have done because we feared that we'd go beyond CAS-acceptable discipline limits and, thereby, possibly lose our children forever.

To complicate the whole situation: The harsh treatment our children received at the heartless hands of the CAS made them in much more need of affection than of correction, so we made a conscious and deliberate decision to deal with the correction once they were back home. The authoritarian attitude of, and the defamatory remarks made, in private, about us to our children by, the CAS did a lot to diminish our children's acceptance of our parental authority. There was often no point, therefore, in attempting to take on a battle which we estimated we wouldn't win anyway.

The court papers make repeated reference to the fact that my wife and I did submit to a psychological assessment, and that that assessment was favourable, but also find fault with the fact that "no recommendations for follow-up were made". When specifically asked for follow-up recommendations, the psychologist responded with a letter (not mentioned in the court papers) which, in part, says:

    "It is of great importance to state that Ruby could not have been subjected     to any greater stress than having her children removed from her care.     During this whole experience Ruby was being observed by visit supervisors,     social workers, lawyers, parent tutors, doctors and psychologists.     Although she was emotionally upset she did not breakdown, lose her faith,     or become unable to respond to her children on visits even though she was     so deeply hurt and frightened.  This was one of the severest tests one     could have ever put Ruby through."

A set of conditions which the CAS has added to the supervision order is related to the proper care of our 6-year-old son with respect to his cerebral palsy. While we, of course and in principle, wouldn't mind signing any such set of conditions, I'd rather not given the current situation. In my opinion, signing this sort of thing as part of this sort of document is tantamount to admitting that we've been guilty of serious failure in this area in the past.

A condition which the CAS has added to the supervision order is that it wants a psychological assessment of our 10-year-old daughter. It's claimed that, while in foster care, she, on several occasions, was very negative about herself, cried silently, curled up into a fetal position, and claimed that it hurt whenever anyone touched her. In addition, our social worker told us that she had shown lots of anger. Maybe she did do some (or even all) of these things there, but, since she hasn't done any of them here (before her apprehension, during any visit, or after her return), doesn't this really prove that she had serious problems with her apprehension?

I, in response to this, did the unCAS thing, i.e. ask her. She admitted to having been angry quite a bit, insisting that it was directed at the CAS. She admitted to having cried a lot, insisting that it was due to her having to stay in the foster place. She admitted to having been negative, insisting that it was directed at the foster people and due to her situation. She admitted to having not wanted to be touched, and to having claimed that being touched hurt, insisting that she didn't want to be touched by all of those strangers. She asked me what a fetal position was, and, after a live demonstration, said that she didn't remember ever doing that.

She has exhibited a few interesting behaviours since she's been back home, and all of them appear to be humourous allegations against the CAS. She has, on a number of occasions, intentionally bumped into things and then asked us if we saw what the CAS just made her do. She's shown us a bruise and then told us that it was caused by the bad foster bed which she had to use.

Our social worker told us that, although it's not in the conditions, the Child Protection Team at the Children's Hospital also wants our 4-year-old daughter to undergo a psychological assessment because it's claimed that she, while in foster care, was very quiet and spent a lot of time staring out into space. As I'm sure anyone who knows her will testify, she's a very lively little girl who's full of imagination. Once again, it would appear that the CAS's own evidence is the best testimony to the harmfulness of its own ways. It seems to be so blinded to this, though, that the best it can come up with is that any negative behaviour can only ever be indicative of how awful the real parents must have been.

She told us that the Child Protection Team at the Children's Hospital, after hearing our 2-year-old son's foster parent provided list of behaviours, and after observing some of them for itself, has firmly concluded that he's been a victim of serious neglect by his real parents for an extended period of time. She, in response to my questioning, added that she'd told them that she hasn't observed any of those behaviours since his return home, but that they still insisted that those behaviours were symptoms of long term neglect. My opinion is that if our 2-year-old son began, in a very short period of time, to display behaviours typically only ever associated with long term neglect, then his foster "care" stint must have been an incredibly awful experience.

Our social worker told me, during a phone call yesterday just before the CHEO CPT review, that it has been claimed that our 2-year-old son had some sort of anal tear when he was brought into foster care. She told me that she, personally, doesn't believe that we're guilty of having caused it, and asked if I could recall whether or not he was constipated that day. I couldn't remember, but told her that the only times I remember our children suffering from that sort of thing was when they switched from breast milk to solid food.

What do an unexplained anal tear when he was brought into foster care, an unexplained penile laceration when he returned from a visit, and the CPT's belief that his stress-caused behaviours are signs of long term parental neglect all add up to? We've been added to the Children's Hospital's "alert list", meaning that we'll come under immediate suspicion whenever we bring in any of our children for medical care. A review, for whatever it's worth, will be held in six months. We weren't invited to yesterday's review, and I doubt that we'll be invited to the next one. They were aware of the psychologist's report, but its author wasn't at yesterday's review either. Add our alert list registration to our child abuse registry listing, and we're really in good shape!

This business of being found guilty without having an opportunity to speak to the charges is really getting to me. God, in Philippians 2:14, commands that all things are to be done without murmuring and complaining. I must admit that, this afternoon, I'm having an especially difficult time obeying this directive.

--