Pubdate: Wed, 19 Dec 2012
Source: Kamloops Daily News (CN BC)
Copyright: 2012 Kamloops Daily News
Contact:  http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/679

GOVERNMENT OVERSTEPS IN GROW-OP CASE

One of the most overt examples of government intrusion into the homes
of its citizens is when the state threatens to take away kids from
their parents.

There are times when it's appropriate for social workers to apprehend
children: when kids are denied the essentials of life, are physically
abused or are living in a situation where their lives are in imminent
danger.

The incident that happened in Kamloops on Nov. 28, in contrast - when
it's alleged social workers threatened the apprehension of a family's
kids - can only be described as an abuse of power.

Angela Ferguson and Brad Olson are filing a complaint with the B.C.
Human Rights Tribunal after threats of apprehension due to a licensed
- - and therefore legal - grow op operating in their house.

Olson, who juices marijuana leaves to cope with the pain of
degenerative discs caused by a spinal cord injury, grows the plants in
his home. The social workers apparently believed this was bad for the
kids, citing air quality, ventilation and electrical safety.

It turns out everything was to code, but it's the alleged threat
that's most worrisome. In most cases, tearing away kids from their
parents would undoubtedly cause more trauma than the reason for the
apprehension.

As the couple's lawyer said, "There's a lot of emotional pain and
hardship when you disrupt a family."

A child's home is a familiar environment, and their parents, even if
they are bad parents in society's eyes, give comfort and stability to
kids.

Taking children into the state's hands must be the last resort. Even
threats can be disruptive to the family.

Certainty of wrongdoing and investigation should take place well
before suggestion of apprehension. And other forms of intervention
should come first, such as counselling and parenting courses.

The social workers involved in this case - if it proves to be true -
obviously didn't see it that way and overstepped their bounds. It was
a minor, minor issue that should have been handled differently, and
one hopes similar incidents in the future will be.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D