Newborn to be taken from Mom

[mandygeering]

That has to be one of the saddest stories I have read in a while. We need to take a look at the parents that are seeking help from the ministry and then using the money on drugs and booze instead of supporting their children, not the parents who may be the greatest most loving family possible. We do not know these parents can not perform up to standards and who are we to judge them before they even get a chance? This is sickening in so many ways, the people who need to have their children taken away slip through the cracks and continue mistreating their kids and the ones who want their children and do everything they can to provide for them are the ones who get investigated and drug through the system. Makes me sick!

[zookeeper]

I'm thinking if they had something terrible to hide they wouldn't be putting themselves in the public spot light.

So the Ministry is going to take the baby. They must appear before a judge within 7 days (7 important days of mother/child bonding, but whatever). It will be interesting to see what the story is, from all statements they haven't been through anything many families have, those that get to keep their children because they're not on the radar. Maybe the judge should go to their home, from what I see in the pictures they've gone above and beyond what many expecting parents do, the house looks clean and they look well groomed.



http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-108521-101-.htm#108521

[CloisteredDrone]

I'm thinking if they had something terrible to hide they wouldn't be putting themselves in the public spot light.

So the Ministry is going to take the baby. They must appear before a judge within 7 days (7 important days of mother/child bonding, but whatever). It will be interesting to see what the story is, from all statements they haven't been through anything many families have, those that get to keep their children because they're not on the radar. Maybe the judge should go to their home, from what I see in the pictures they've gone above and beyond what many expecting parents do, the house looks clean and they look well groomed.



http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-108521-101-.htm#108521

Why shouldn't they put themselves in the spot light? Their side of the story is the only side that the public hears, because the Ministry can't comment on individual cases.

The Ministry's only duty is to protect the baby, because the baby cannot protect itself. Give the parents a chance to prove themselves? What if the baby ends up dead while these people are 'proving themselves?' What would be the reaction of the Castanet round table then? The Ministry must have some really good reasons for stepping in to protect this helpless baby.

Let's pretend for a second. Let's say a school teacher has a history of sexually molesting children and he loses his job. A couple of years later, he tells the media that he's all better now and wants his teaching job back. Are you going to say, 'Well, his apartment looks clean and he looks well groomed. Let's give him another chance with the kids and let him prove himself!"

[sislonski]

While I feel for these parents I agree that there has to be more to the story then is being told.

In reply to the comment "why would they put themselves out there?" I don't know for sure , but you know, some parents/people just don't get it! They don't get why their child was removed from them, even when given a logical answer. And in the case where someone has a learning disability, getting it might be even more challenging. Thus they think they're right in putting themselves out there.

I don't know if this is the case with this couple or not but we don't know anything for sure. I feel that the government is doing what they see is best for the baby. Just because a person tells you one thing doesn't make it the truth.

[1669]

How can anyone not agree that having more children than you can fully support in every way is irresponsible. I suspect a lot of the comments are from those people who have either had their children seized by the ministry for neglect or abuse and/or are also expecting everyone else to support the children that they have failed miserably to provide for.

I'm all for equal rights, and if the taxpayer has to carefully consider whether they can afford to have another child, so should everyone else. If you don't love your children enough to work to provide for them, you should not have any more. Bringing up children on welfare dooms most of them from the start to a substandard level of living. If you truly love your children, than show it by setting the best example for them by working, and to raise their standard of living to give them the best chance in life.

Even if only one of these "parents" had a child seized that would be alarming enough. Fact is that they each managed independantly to have a child seized for neglect and violence. Bad enough to have 1 child seized, but to have 1 seized from each of them before they even met, is enough to ring alarm bells for anyone with any decision making skills.
B/W them, they each have a child in foster care and yet they choose to have another? Of course the ministry is going to become involved. I cannot comprehend how anyone looking at the facts can justify insulting the ministry action.

Would the responsible person not try and have the other 2 children returned before having another baby who is also sure to be seized? Take care of the children you have already before you have anymore. Common sense.

[Carmencat]

Forsyth admits that at that time the Ministry offered to let her stay with her son if she left her boyfriend, but she declined. However, some time later she did move in with the foster family and her son.

"I did go and live with them for three years, but I decided to move out last year because of concerns I had, and that is how I ended up in the relationship I have now

I find this quote from the mother in a Castanet story rather odd. She chose her abusive boyfriend over her first child. Then she finally left the abusive boyfriend and moved in with the foster family and her son for three years. Wouldn't these people have had to have been relatives for her to be able to move in? I have never heard of a case where the bio mother of a foster child moves in with the foster parents on a permanent basis. In any case she is in her first child's life apparently full time for much of his life if he is only five and a half now and she left last year when he was four. One would think if the ministry thought she was capable of having her son back with her and not in foster care they would have done this at some point during the three years she apparently lived with her son.

But she then chose to leave her son because of concerns over his care, move on and make a replacement child. I would imagine the ministry has more reasons than we know to make the decision that they have.

[Mtn Biker]

Why shouldn't they put themselves in the spot light? Their side of the story is the only side that the public hears, because the Ministry can't comment on individual cases.

The Ministry's only duty is to protect the baby, because the baby cannot protect itself. Give the parents a chance to prove themselves? What if the baby ends up dead while these people are 'proving themselves?' What would be the reaction of the Castanet round table then? The Ministry must have some really good reasons for stepping in to protect this helpless baby.

Let's pretend for a second. Let's say a school teacher has a history of sexually molesting children and he loses his job. A couple of years later, he tells the media that he's all better now and wants his teaching job back. Are you going to say, 'Well, his apartment looks clean and he looks well groomed. Let's give him another chance with the kids and let him prove himself!"

Holy hypothetical. NORMAL parents have killed their children too. NORMAL people are abusive, violent and should not be parents, but they are. Lets confine these people to their apparent short comings and control their right to live a NORMAL life. What is normal? Well unfortunately for too many of us and those featured in this story, normal based on your comments says they don't measure up to some standard, and therefore the normal people of the ministry should have the ultimate say. No one is arguing that the ministry's duty is care of the child. What we're arguing is are they right in this case? I can't say, but I can say from first hand knowledge, the ministry often does not know what the right thing is or if they do, they still chose to follow some misguided notion they know best. The ministry should have really good reasons, but way TOO often they don't. It's just their God complex stepping up. They're just humans too, with all the same propensity to make mistakes. That's what stinks about this story. In this case, more than just a child and parents are affected, so if the very large support family deprived of a life with this child. The whole thing smells like soiled diapers.

[Gunner1]

I find this quote from the mother in a Castanet story rather odd. She chose her abusive boyfriend over her first child. Then she finally left the abusive boyfriend and moved in with the foster family and her son for three years. Wouldn't these people have had to have been relatives for her to be able to move in? I have never heard of a case where the bio mother of a foster child moves in with the foster parents on a permanent basis. In any case she is in her first child's life apparently full time for much of his life if he is only five and a half now and she left last year when he was four. One would think if the ministry thought she was capable of having her son back with her and not in foster care they would have done this at some point during the three years she apparently lived with her son.

But she then chose to leave her son because of concerns over his care, move on and make a replacement child. I would imagine the ministry has more reasons than we know to make the decision that they have.

Actually, they don't have to be relatives for her to move in to be with her child. It happens. Probably more than any of us think it does.

I too believe that there is more to the story than what has been told via the media and that is why the Ministry is holding strong with their stance. With that being said though, my heart truly breaks for this family. The Ministry has proven themselves to be wrong quite a few times in the past. Perhaps, one day, the actual truth will be known. The real focus should be on ensuring that this innocent baby is taken care of properly! Too many have been failed before.

[Tero]

I find this quote from the mother in a Castanet story rather odd. She chose her abusive boyfriend over her first child. Then she finally left the abusive boyfriend and moved in with the foster family and her son for three years. Wouldn't these people have had to have been relatives for her to be able to move in? I have never heard of a case where the bio mother of a foster child moves in with the foster parents on a permanent basis. In any case she is in her first child's life apparently full time for much of his life if he is only five and a half now and she left last year when he was four. One would think if the ministry thought she was capable of having her son back with her and not in foster care they would have done this at some point during the three years she apparently lived with her son.

But she then chose to leave her son because of concerns over his care, move on and make a replacement child. I would imagine the ministry has more reasons than we know to make the decision that they have.

I"m a foster parent. I've had mom and baby live with me. It's quite common.

Sadly, it's also VERY COMMON to go on to have more kids when you already have one or more in care. So is choosing a man over your children. I see it all the time.

The comments on here actually make me laugh, there is SO MUCH more to this story than can be reported.

Don't get me wrong. Of course the MCFD screws up. I see that all the time too. I also know crappy foster parents. In genreal though, these parents are no victims.... (the baby is at risk of being a victim. Also a victim are the children in care who know their parents have gone on to have NEW children, even though they (the poor kids) are still in foster care. :-((( )

[Carmencat]

Thanks for your reply, Tero. I know several foster parents but I guess have just never encoutered a situation where they are looking after the child and the mother. I might add the foster parents I know, past and present, are amazing people who have provided wonderful, loving homes for their foster children. In many cases the foster kids have stayed part of the 'family' long after they have become adults.

While I have had no experince with this particular system, I have had with the ministry over other matters, and often saving money is the bottom line. So if they are willing to keep paying for a foster parent there is quite likely a good reason.

[rioghnacha]

This is the ministry of children and families in BC, they do what they want.