Monday, November 30, 2015

Social Worker Code of Ethics for Canadian Child Protection

Core Social Work Values and Principles

Values and Principals


1. RESPECT FOR THE INHERENT DIGNITY AND WORTH OF PERSONS


  • Social workers have zero respect for families and have zero duty of care to them. Regard for dignity and human rights is a waste of their time.
  • Social workers think they are god’s gift to children, not parents, so they determine when parents can sneeze or shit regardless of theirs and the children’s “rights”.
  • Social workers have no respect for religion, diversity, or individuality in Canadian Society. If parents have a belief system, you bet your ass it will be ignored and replaced.
  • Social workers clients will be given the right to volunteer to receive any services deemed necessary without explanation, if they want their adoptable children back.
    Social workers will relieve their child client’s the burden of consent, and “explain” the error of their parent’s ways, and inform the child of their right to no longer have to listen to their parents. Said children will be informed of their right to tattle on their parents.
  • Social workers unilaterally decide what is best for society, and as such, will graciously impose limitations on families self-determination to prevent inevitable self harm and harm to their children that will result from straying from the instructions from their new gods.
  • Social workers will uphold the right of each person to choose to be free from the threat of violence by ensuring spouses are separated at the earliest opportunity, or lose their kids.

 2. PURSUIT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

  • Social workers graciously offer to care for parents children and ensure child tax credits, special needs subsidies, housing allowances will continue for the children (not the parents).
  • Social workers will ensure parents do not drain the system of public services and benefits.
  • Social workers will gut your right to a fair trial, lie and fabricate evidence as necessary in order to  win at any cost. The more vulnerable and disadvantaged parents are, the better.
  • Social workers will benevolently socially develop parents during working hours and at distant locations, as these valuable hurdles will test parents committment to their children.

3.  SERVICE TO HUMANITY

  • Social workers place the needs of their S.S. comrades first, their lawyers second, the foster parents third, expert evidence manufacturers fourth, and children and parents last.
  • Social workers strive to use their power and authority to ensure families confirm to their ideas of social and legal justice. As long as parents lose and they win, all is good.
  • Social workers will dictate what parental development will occur, and impose their goals and timelines that parents have the right to obey, or lose their kids. Such a just society rules.
  • Social workers use their god-like powers and confliction promotion skills as weapons of war to ensure parents accept their fair resolutions, and accept guilt, or lose their kids.

4. INTEGRITY IN PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

  • Social workers will subvert the qualities of honesty, reliability, impartiality and diligence in their professional practice. Really, what is the point of all that shit? Win at all costs Rules!
  • Social workers will demonstrate their true independance and autonomy by not allowing interference by ethics, principals, or memberships and registrations with associations and colleges which perport to hold them accountable or subject to lawsuits. Screw that shit.
  • Social workers recognize that restrictive boundaries with clients interferes with the master slave relationship, therefore those boundaries will be created for parents as needs dictate.
  • Social workers abhore openness and transparency and professionalism, so will strive to avoid that in order to best compromise integrity and impartiality, will promote and create conflict, and ensure maximum conflict of interest exists in order to crush parents in court.

 5. CONFIDENTIALITY IN PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

  • Social workers will encourage parents to trusssst them, and will gain their confidence in order to tell every one of their sins and harvest dirt to use in court against their clients.
  • Social workers respect their right to confide their clients secrets to whomever they choose in order to sway professionals to villify the unsuspecting fools in court.
  • Social workers will disclose their clients sensitive information without permission of the client or their lawyer in order to poison the evidence pool so the leaks cannot be detected.
  • Social workers will post their clients confidential information on their Facebook pages in order to make cruel jokes. Social workers can’t be sued anyways, so what’s the big deal?
  • Social workers thrive on ambiguity and random sentence structure, for example to demonstrate transparency with respect to limits to confidentiality that apply to their professional practice by clearly communicating these limitations to clients.  Is this clear now?

6. COMPETENCE IN PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

  • Social workers will uphold the right of clients to be offered the highest quality of service. Refusing such generous offers will result in loss of their children to adoption by anyone else.
  • Social workers strive (yawn) to maintain and increase their “professional” “skills”. (LMFAO!)
  • Social workers being the multi-talented parents/lawyers/educators/doctors/counsellors/psychiatrists/plumbers they are, get to opin on whatever they want to advance their case.
  • Social workers being the embarrassment to their profession that they are, shall use their god-like powers to destroy humanity, by handing kids over to pedophiles and abusers, and sharing those secrets of destructions with co-workers while pretending to help children.
  • Social workers will “investigate” clients by using anonymous, but reliable community sources to best fabricate and inaccurately convey evidence for judges in order to win.

LINKS

Saturday, October 3, 2015

Gervais death at Super 8 - MCFD needs to be purged and gutted, not "restructured"

http://bit.ly/GervaisCadieux
http://bit.ly/GervaisSmythBlog

I don't get why it is so hard for the MCFD Minister Stephanie Cadieux to answer who Gervais' social workers was, the legally designated parent who put the kid in the hotel?

Just let the press talk to that person on camera and ask why the boy was put in a hotel, and go from there. I don't really care about hearing of the high workloads of social workers are in general, and the budget woes of MCFD.

Hotels are certainly cheaper than what the contractor "Community Vision" was paid over the past 15 years. This payment average $117k per kid (33 kids in 23 location in 2014/15 ) vs. the cost a Super 8 hotel might be $20,000/yr. For that price, a luxury apartment that would fit several kids and a supervisor (or Skype cameras), an expenditure that would seem to make better sense.

Community Vision - Payments to made by MCFD
2015 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2014-15 - $3,473,719, $220,421 $172,311  (3,866,451) (117,165/kid/yr)
2014 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2013-14 - $2,922,826, $131,034, $283,428
2013 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2012-13 - $2,446,014, $167,902, $699,234
2012 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2011-12 - $2,185,422, $144,702
2011 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2010-11 - $2,538,896, 154,860
2010 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2009-10 - $3,540,922, $224,193
2009 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2008-09 - $5,110,762, $340,227
2008 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2007-08 - $5,129,215, $306,757
2007 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2006-07 - $4,712,099, $383,686
2006 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2005-06 - $3,122,884, $294,900
2005 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2004-05 - $1,660,086, $188,843
2004 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2003-04 - $1,475,696, $74,695
2003 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2002-03 - $1,636,463, $71,834
2002 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2001-02 - $1,725,305, $108,747
2001 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2000-01 - $1,489,945

MCFD puts kids in single occupancy apartments with no supervision all the time. Kids get $1,000 spending money and a free room, and no social workers check in on them. (In fact, social workers say they cannot enter these rooms) It's the exact same thing as a hotel. It's the exact same thing as Paige experienced.

I'm curious as to how MCFD is able to hide the financing of kids in hotels or apartments, because it's not in the Ministry of Finance report of payments made, and the discretionary credit card spending list shows some cheap hotels, but not that much is paid to hotels to account for even a few kids.

Why doesn't Stephanie know who the social worker was who signed off on the hotel a week Gervais death? Is she lying about now knowing? How did the hotel bills get paid? If Gervais committed suicide, how come there is no suicide note to his girlfriend he was about to marry, or to his best friend who was in the hotel when he died? Why didn't he just slide the window open to jump out? Was he on drugs? Where is the corner report?

If the $182 million computer isn't working, why not get someone to maintain an Excel spreadsheet to list all the kids in care, and their locations, and list the social workers who are the designated parents, and list the real parents.

MCFD has 10-14,000 kids in kin/foster care (50% native), 2,300 social workers, 3,200 foster homes, x group homes...a $1.4 billion dollar budget, and the kids in care count is at the lowest level in years, so I don't really buy the limited resources argument.

I am concerned RCY's Lafond is using this case and the death of Paige death to say MCFD needs more welfare funding (who at age 19, they are no longer a child in need of protection given that they are adults) to keep unsupervised citizens funded another 5 years.

MCFD's idea of accountability is to give a promotion and raise to the ONLY social worker (Mr. William Strickland, who given a raise from team leader in Vancouver to Community Service Manager in Victoria) who was publicly named and convicted by a Supreme Court Justice Walker for misfeasance - a first in Canada, in the J.P. vs MCFD lawsuit - so scratch any thoughts of accountability.

It seems the press is the only group that is able to hold MCFD's feet to the fire.

Saturday, September 26, 2015

Dead Super 8 Gervais teen should have been left at home. He would still be alive.

Turpel-Lafonde lays the blame squarely on the Ministry, saying it’s allowed this to happen.

“The Minister needs to get to her cabinet colleagues, and the government needs to put enough money, and enough structure, into that ministry so that they can actually do their jobs, because kid’s safety is at issue.”



Yep, let's put more money into the "problem", because surely, how can a measly $100,000 taxpayer per child per year address the poor child's needs?



The minions have run amok. Of COURSE the heads of the organization are kept in the dark. How else can they claim deniability and pretend to be shocked when the news is made public? This is how the Ministry is DESIGNED to operate!


Lafond criticizes MCFD, and says, oh, by the way, these poor kids, we need to fund them for an ADDITIONAL five years. For every $100 to keep the kid in a hotel or foster home paid with tax-free dollars, while the "system" gets to keep $1,000. Oh, and the Federal government subsidizes this, more so for First Nations kids. It's a scam, folks. It's a magical money laundering operation.


MCFD is a $1.4 billion dollar Ministry.



Community Vision - Payments to made by MCFD
2015 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2014-15 - $3,473,719, $220,421 $172,311
2014 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2013-14 - $2,922,826, $131,034, $283,428
2013 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2012-13 - $2,446,014, $167,902, $699,234
2012 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2011-12 - $2,185,422, $144,702
2011 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2010-11 - $2,538,896, 154,860
2010 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2009-10 - $3,540,922, $224,193
2009 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2008-09 - $5,110,762, $340,227
2008 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2007-08 - $5,129,215, $306,757
2007 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2006-07 - $4,712,099, $383,686
2006 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2005-06 - $3,122,884, $294,900
2005 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2004-05 - $1,660,086, $188,843
2004 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2003-04 - $1,475,696, $74,695
2003 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2002-03 - $1,636,463, $71,834
2002 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2001-02 - $1,725,305, $108,747
2001 - http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2000-01 - $1,489,945





Search through any f these PDFs and you won't find any payments to Super 8 hotels. Instead, you will find these expenses hidden away in MCFD's discretionary credit card spending. That is a separate database



You can rest assured that the bean counters and front line social workers charged with keeping tabs on things are doing EXACTLY that, but the trick here, is how to whitewash the public and sow seeds of confusion in order to hide the fact this easy to obtain information is "really hard" to get.



You don't fire these people, you need them to remain employed in order to answer questions. The people who really run the show are behind the scenes, the "lifers" who survive any leadership transitions.



Just read the judgment of Mr.  Justice Walker July 14, 2015 J.P. v. MCFD, in order to see precisely how MCFD operates on a day to day basis.



http://bit.ly/JP-v-MCFD-2015-7-14

Why not ask if the Super 8 kid's parents were criminally charged with abuse or neglect. No? Send the kid back home and stop forcing taxpayers to foot the bill. He he would still be alive.



The "problem" really is that simple to fix. Stop feeding MCFD just do they can invest imaginary protection concerns to to get a kid in the clutches and the funding that goes along with it. They don't care for kids, they get pad NOT to care.

Friday, September 25, 2015

MCFD payments to Foster homes recorded on Yearly B.C. Finance report.

Find your OWN BC Foster parasite, nasty law firm, psychologist, or other MCFD "service" provider, from the Ministry of Finance Schedule of Payments chart 300-400-page acrobat files posted yearly. The last 15 years of links are listed from 2000-2015.

How much are taxpayers shelling out to watch YOUR kids?

This is the foster home of Martha and Romeo Castro, they had the 4 kids of J.P. for 2 of the  2-1/2 years in 2010 to 2012. You can see 2011/12 jumped to $60,568, then dropped to $29,949 after the kids were returned home, and has stayed at that level.

Note that these payments are TAX FREE, so a normal working stiff would have a higher gross salary and then taxes and such would be deducted. As a sole source of income, these fund intended for the children pays the house mortgage and feeds the adults. The real, custodial biological parents cannot even dream of funds like these to raise their kids. Also, the laws that state kids who are exposed to a higher standard of living beyond a year, those temporary replacement parents are obligated to "top up" the real parents household income. Of course, the government is more than happy to dump kids back to a home of poverty compared to well paid foster homes. The undocumented benefits such as respite care and free babysitters or nanny state for the larger homes are NOT added into the financial equation.

CASTRO, MARTHA & CASTRO, ROMEO
Capacity: 3-4 kids
2000/01 $ Not listed for this year
2001/02 $ 43,103
2002/03 $ 56,628
2003/04 $ 49,434
2004/05 $ 44,987
2005/06 $ 51,535
2006/07 $ 40,454
2007/08 $ 46,023
2008/09 Not listed for this year
2009/10 $ 51,093
2010/11 $ 51,630
2011/12 $ 60,568
2012/13 $ 29,949
2013/14 $ 28,273
2014/15 $ 30,284

http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2014-15
http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2013-14
http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2012-13
http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2011-12
http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2010-11
http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2009-10
http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2008-09
http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2007-08
http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2006-07
http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2005-06
http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2004-05
http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2003-04
http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2002-03
http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2001-02
http://bit.ly/BC-CRA-2000-01

Monday, September 21, 2015

Isabella Wiens - mom's video showing her fine one minute, then dead in MCFD care the next minute


Here is a video of mom Sarah Jane Marie Wiens, mother of the 21-month old Isabella the the BC MCFD killed "accidentally" while in care.

MCFD hid the fact the child, who could not walk, had broken bones that occurred during the 19-month period in one or more of the three foster homes. 

How does a child who can't walk, have her bones broken "accidentally"?

How is it, the coroner cannot determine a cause of death, and make no recommendations in light of his discovery of broken bones and numerous bruises?

http://bit.ly/sarajaneWeins-video

J.P. vs. MCFD Trial Watch - Interim chambers hearing - Walker's 56-page ruling 2013 BCSC 1403

BCSC Judge Walker's 56-page 198 paragraph interim judgment in the current lawsuit,
highlights the remarkably sneaky attempts by the Province to try to undo the damage as a result of them withdrawing in the 92-day protection and custody action. Clearly, they thought wrongly that by simply withdrawing, they could just re-litigate the finding of facts with better lawyers.

The lawsuit also shows that the children have been added as plaintiffs to the lawsuit.
It seems that the lying social workers and the Province that supports them has bitten off more than they can chew.

You can see also, that pedo dad applied to have a Judge Walker recused. Nice try.
This ruling was released August 2, 2013 from a hearing on this matter May 31, 2013.

http://canlii.ca/t/fzz28

CanLII - 2013 BCSC 1403 (CanLII)
The Director of Child, Family & Community Services and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia - canlii.ca


Comments
  • Donalda McCutcheon typo! Introduction [37] mental not 'metal'
     
  • Jack Justice Long judgment moving forward in the process if they fight it is still a long way off
     
  • Angus Hawk Trial may be finished in February
     
  • Jack Justice appeals likely will follow whoever wins or loses
     
  • Angus Hawk Considering the Province is not exactly in a winning position, appeals are expected.
  • Jack Justice what I sped read surely suggests that > unlimited money the province has but on the good side you win they pay
     
  • Donalda McCutcheon Well, clearly, they are prohibited from re-litigating so they won't be allowed to use public money to avoid consequences indefinitely.

    And, if they use the tattle-tales to defend their assumptions and are questioned regarding those, they'll have to pr
    ...See More
  • Donalda McCutcheon Love it!
    "That said, if plaintiffs’ counsel challenges the veracity of the account provided by the Province’s witnesses of what they were told, the Province would be permitted to call evidence from those witnesses who provided those reports about their statements to the Director or Ministry staff. "
     
  • Angus Hawk The majority of the "concerns" raised by the "credible" community sources have already been disproven. The Province's argument is based on the assumption that the did the right thing, based on the information they had at the time.
     
  • Papa Inbc This is but one example of nearly a dozen interim applications and decisions made DURING the trial. This one you can see the lawsuit number S118923 to search by, and the style of cause that shows all the litigants and lawyers names involved.

    Court wra
    pped up today at noon at 12:45, adjourned until January 6th, 2014 at 10:00 PM Courtroom #75, Vancouver BC Supreme Courthouse at Smithe and Howe St.

    It sounds like there will be another witness, the after hours social worker Bev Sholtz who did the actual removal of the four kids Dec30/09.
  • Donalda McCutcheon probably go for mental defect--lots of evidence for that
     
  • Angus Hawk I don't think anyone disagrees there are mental health issues in these cases.

    Who suffers from the illness is the question.
  • Jack Justice count the number of names involved then the statistic is 1 in 3 suffer from some sort of mental illness > example the Toronto police have 5800 members thereabouts and we wonder why people are shot dead

J.P. vs. MCFD - CBC story with video

Watch CBC starting anytime after 5:00 PM for something related to the MCFD lawsuit run by Mr. Hittrich. I don't know precisely what it will relate to.

Tomorrow is the last day, all witnesses have testified.
Closing submissions will take a couple of weeks.
Comments