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.