Pubdate: Mon, 31 Oct 2005
Source: Province, The (CN BC)
Copyright: 2005 The Province
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/vancouver/theprovince/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/476
Author: Joey Thompson

LAW USED TO KEEP SURREY COUPLE FROM THEIR KIDS

Pair Don't Deserve Any Parental Rights

To most of us, parenting means guarding, protecting and nurturing.

But not to M.H. and G.K., two Surrey lowlifes who did little for 
years but under-feed, neglect and abuse their 11 children, now in the 
Children's Ministry's care.

Last month, a judge of the B.C. provincial court invoked a rarely 
used section of the Child, Family and Community Act to stop the 
couple from having anything to do with C, aged 12 and K, aged 15, 
despite the fact the kids had been running away from their guardians 
to be with mom and dad.

While obtaining a restraining order to prevent parents and kids from 
being together is the most drastic step a child protection agency can 
take -- one that should only occur in the most dire of cases -- 
workers probably should have done it years ago for the sake of these children.

According to court documents, the adults are hard-core drinkers and 
junkies who, in my opinion, had forfeited all constitutional right to 
parent before they took their daughter -- who was living in a 
ministry-approved 24/7 care home by then -- to meet "the girls" and a 
young pimp on East Hastings Street.

They told their daughter she could make up to $200 a day if she would 
just "loosen up" a bit with a few drinks.

But it wasn't until a month later, when the teen arrived at the care 
facility at 5 a.m. with shallow breath and bruised ribs that social 
workers kicked into gear. The girl said she had been hit because her 
mom, a prostitute herself, accused her of taking money.

That's when they discovered K's brother wasn't doing much better. The 
12-year-old had also been leaving his foster placement without 
permission, albeit less frequently than his sister.

According to an assessment at Sunny Hill Hospital, the lad suffers 
from brain damage, although doctors were unable to diagnose Fetal 
Alcohol Syndrome or Narcotic Affect Syndrome because his mom was 
tight-lipped about her habits during pregnancy.

Clearly, the child has issues. He is disruptive, aggressive, slow at 
learning and emotionally explosive at times; extreme behaviours that 
doctors have muted by medication.

Much to his parents' disapproval. Don't take them, he was told.

"Without [them] C is spiralling out of control quickly," ministry 
workers told the judge.

"He is now reporting that he won't take his medication, won't attend 
school and wishes to live with his mother and father."

My mom often claimed that kids don't know what's good for them. While 
it isn't always so, it's true in this case.

Children who grow up abused and neglected believe such behaviour is 
normal. They don't know any better. Tough measures and enough time to 
show them another way of living are essential if these kids are ever 
going to enjoy a normal, loving relationship.

Enter Section 98 of the act, which mandates the court to grant a 
restraining order if there are reasonable grounds to believe a parent 
or other person is encouraging, helping or coercing, or is likely to 
do any of the above, in order to press a child in care into prostitution.

Ditto for someone who tries to exploit, abuse or intimidate a child 
or youth in care -- breach the restraining order and go to jail.

Drastic, extreme measures, for sure. But sometimes there is no other way.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman