Disabled parents are parents too!, Laurie Edberg

My name is Laurie Edberg.  My contact information is ledberg@telus.net

I am a 38 year old mother with a disability. My first child was born May 14,1990. My twins were born Sept 25,1996. From June 1990 till this date my children have been repeatedly apprehended. The only crime I have ever committed is of having Ataxia  and a tracheotomy.   There has never been any evidence of any type of abuse.  I have been repeatedly labeled with neglect for the simple fact that I can not run after the twins or project my voice loud enough. 

I succeeded in Court until February of 2002.  My oldest son was placed in continuing care in February 2002, because a couple years earlier I was forced to sign a voluntary care agreement.  I was told by the social worker at the time, that I either place him in voluntary care or she would apprehend all three boys.

In February of 2002, my twins were returned to my custody. Only to have them reapprehended a few months later. My twins were placed in continuing care in November of 2004. In November of 2002, I was given a court order allowing me 4 hours once a week unsupervised with my oldest son.  Since my twins were apprehended in June of 2002, I had varied visits lasting from once a week to 4 days a week for a few hours at a time.

Since the court case in November of 2004,  my visits and access has been limited to once a month for 2 hours. Even though I was invited by the judge to apply for reasonable access. I ALSO NEED TO MENTION, IN THIS COURT CASE THAT EVEN THE MCFD'S WITNESSES EVEN TESTIFIED THE MOTHER AND CHILDREN LOVE EACH OTHER AND THERE IS/WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ABUSE.

I have an appeal in the supreme court set for August 2005 for my appeal to be heard and a access order to be heard in family court. On April 14, 2005 in the social workers office, she had stated in front of myself and my 2 local advocates, that there was every intention of putting boys up for adoption and the appeal before the courts had no weight on their intentions. But then after a hour of discussion, she agreed to increase my access to 2 visits a month for 3 hours.

Even though s.15 and s.55 in the BC legislation and Children, Family Services Act describes how there is a obligation by MCFD and other government agencies to put proper supports as needed into the home to keep the paramount family optics in place. This has never been properly done. It seems that to MCFD it is somehow prudent to place children in care, where it costs thousands of dollars a month. Than to keep the children in the home of a loving parent, where it would cost a fraction of that money to put proper supports in the home.

IF YOU ARE A ADVOCATE FOR DISABLED PARENTS, I COULD CERTAINLY USE YOUR ASSISTANCE. YOUR ASSISTANCE WILL BE A ADDED BENEFIT TO THE ASSISTANCE
I ALREADY HAVE. Thank you. THIS DELAY IS NOT JUSTICE TO MY CHILDREN.
Thank you for your time. LAURIE EDBERG

To: skshydro
Subject: MEETING WITH SOCIAL WORKER

my local advocate walked into her office at 11:30. About 5 minutes later in walk my other advocate. We all sat round in a circle.  The social worker made it clear she was not willing to provide me with more then 2 hrs amth.  She stated that it wasn't in the best interest of the children and that she saw increasing visits pointless considering court case to hear access coming up in August. After my one advocate tried to reason with her, she still would not budge.  Then my other advocate tried to reason with her from another angle.  She still wasn't willing to budge. Then they both came at her from a heart felt direction. One advocate pointed out how hurtful and harmful such a decision was to limit my access  to my twins was. The other advocate then convinced her to increase my access to 2 visits amth for 3 hrs.

When asked if she had the power to increase visits and access, she admitted she chose not to use it.  But at least with the assistance of both advocates. I went from 1 two hr visit amth to 2 three hr visits amth.  I need to mention to that event though a appeal is put before supreme court, that she stated that the process for adoption has begun. She insisted that when asked how could MCFD do that even before a decision has been made in supreme court. Her response was as far as MCFD is concerned the decision was already made in my last case in family court on November 1,04.

My lawyer went to court on April 11 in supreme court in Campbell River. He asked that the assessment from my last psychologist be allowed and a new psychologist be allowed to do an assessment on myself and my twin be allowed as evidence.

Thank you, Laurie Edberg

Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:38:50 -0800
From: H Mac
Reply-To: H Mac
Subject: disabled parents
To: ledberg@telus.net

Dear Ms. Edberg,

I work at the Record newspaper and recently found your e-mail of 4 June 2004 which had been misfiled. .I hope you've gotten your children back and are doing well, but I know that is unrealistic. The ministry doesn't work that way.  There are other stories like yours in the Valley and I would like very much to tell them, but the ministry has threatened us with contempt once and we would be likely face criminal charges if we tried again.  So I'm afraid there's very little I can do for you in that respect.

However, there have been some changes in other areas which might help you.  Most importantly, Stan Hagen was appointed minister of children and family services. You've probably already talked to him about this, but he's facing re-election in three months, and might be interested in your story. I've also had some discussion with a former social worker in Ontario who spent years in various child welfare systems (but not in B.C.) and has a working knowledge of their internal politics.  I expect you've already exhausted most avenues, but this might be of value to you.  If you're still having problems with the ministry, I'll try to "hook you up".

Bruce MacInnis