Re: Dealing With A Family Tragedy

[Guest guest]

So sad ...so sad...I want to cry...i have no connection with either but it brings great sadness to me to hear and read such thngs...such state of affairs...a child who could have been ...a child that never got to grow and share...how so unfair...how so cruel...but at least I do know these sad forsaken children are in good hands now....and will never be forgotten ..and happiness will be with them there forever and ever

Janice Rushen

"I will try to be open to all avenues of wisdom and hope"

From: tdhssp <johnvel@...>Subject: ( ) Dealing With A Family Tragedy Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 1:52 PM

http://mybirdie. ca/ ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----------St. Albert's PlaceBy Don SinclairSt. Albert News . . . St. Albert's Place On The Web . . . "An arena where honest opinion is mixed freely with a lightly used editor's pen and freedom of expression is the rule of day." http://mybirdie. ca/Dealing With A Family Tragedy11/12/2008 04:03 Don, Through reflection I have come to realize why it may be that I feel so passionate about the nameless foster child who died on 27th January 2007 in Edmonton. I will attempt to convey my thoughts here: This sad death of a young life followed our beloved girl by a single month. He was a boy who might have been anyone's child. A little boy who came

into the world and left it all too suddenly with grave issues surrounding him. Many of which, we may never gain insight into. The only difference between he and my child are the reasons they entered contract of Ministry care. While I do not pretend to have knowledge of the circumstances which prompted Ministry involvement for the boy, our little girl was receiving services for disability alone ... nothing more, no protection issues whatsoever, none. From here, both children are now equal: They have been deemed recipients of care under Government guidance for exceptional, albeit, distinctly different needs and from there, both were tragically failed. While the boy may not have anyone to speak on his behalf: Perhaps the natural family is unaware? Perhaps they, too, are 'gagged' by a publication ban? Perhaps they do not have the education or stability to adequately convey their thoughts?

At worst, the inconceivable, perhaps they do not care? Those issues matter little in a larger scheme because the end result is the same: He was a little child, with much potential to thrive, just like my own and whose life was hopelessly stolen. Now, my voice need be far-reaching beyond my daughter and take cause towards those who harm innocent victims without voice. I take issue that the children are reduced a nameless beings - if no one else does - I do care. As an writer of unknown origin states: "Tell me why you bother, why waste your time this way. He's only one of millions, does it matter anyway?" And she said, "It matters to this one, he deserves a chance to grow. It matters to this one, I can't save them all I know. But it matters to this one, I'll help him be what he can be. It matters to this one, and it matters to me." Two years after the fact - two separate children's deaths

under Ministry direction - we remain under a clouded veil of mystery guised as 'protection' of child and family. I also take slight with a Ministry who has chosen to amend policy and convey that it is done on behalf of a little boy when, in fact, as MLA Notely pointed out: Terms of reference of special case review do not correlate. Recommendations posed by our family have been utilized and do not acknowledge our child, nor our plight to enlighten of need for better protective practice on behalf of all children - especially with disability, but certainly including those without - who enter into Government contract. The little boy also is wronged because he is being utilized as a scapegoat ... a nameless being who could not protect himself in life, nor take arms against deceit in death! As per Harry Chase's commentary regards to perceived unimportance of amendment in law towards a

publication ban: "It isn't going to provide any resolution to the parents of that child." Let me, please, clarify: As a mother affected by the death of her own child, certainly there is closure and resolution in lifting the ban of silence. This stems, not from malice, nor retaliation, but serves separate and distinct purposes twofold: The potential to better protect children: Would the public not want to know the history of a person to whom they entrust their child's care? Perhaps those whose paid duty it is to offer care to children may realize that they will not be protected should they cause harm and perhaps this may serve as deterrent where it will be less likely that circumstances arise in which perpetration exists! Additionally, publicizing the name of a child who has perished offers honour towards the importance of an individual's life. By withholding names, distraction of truth

and justice furthers the trauma inflicted upon those left behind who are not permitted to remember their child openly and lovingly as a valued member who lived and breathed during his/her time on earth. Where there is truth, silence need not exist! Thank you for allowing revelation to exist in journalism - as much as possible given the constraints - under guise of 'protection' . Anonymous, (but not by choice!) SINC SAYS: It is indeed a sad state of affairs when government hides the truth. Thank you for speaking up and our sympathies for the loss of your child.

[Guest guest]

Thank you for caring for the lives loved and lost...

>

> From: tdhssp <johnvel@...>

> Subject: ( ) Dealing With A Family Tragedy

>

> Date: Thursday, December 11, 2008, 1:52 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

> http://mybirdie. ca/

> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

> ----------

>

> St. Albert's Place

> By Don Sinclair

>

> St. Albert News . . .

>

> St. Albert's Place

> On The Web . . .

>

> " An arena where honest opinion is mixed freely with a lightly used

> editor's pen and freedom of expression is the rule of day. "

>

> http://mybirdie. ca/

>

> Dealing With A Family Tragedy

> 11/12/2008 04:03

> Don,

>

> Through reflection I have come to realize why it may be that I feel

> so passionate about the nameless foster child who died on 27th

> January 2007 in Edmonton. I will attempt to convey my thoughts

here:

>

> This sad death of a young life followed our beloved girl by a

single

> month. He was a boy who might have been anyone's child. A little

boy

> who came into the world and left it all too suddenly with grave

> issues surrounding him. Many of which, we may never gain insight

> into. The only difference between he and my child are the reasons

> they entered contract of Ministry care.

>

> While I do not pretend to have knowledge of the circumstances which

> prompted Ministry involvement for the boy, our little girl was

> receiving services for disability alone ... nothing more, no

> protection issues whatsoever, none.

>

> From here, both children are now equal: They have been deemed

> recipients of care under Government guidance for exceptional,

albeit,

> distinctly different needs and from there, both were tragically

> failed. While the boy may not have anyone to speak on his behalf:

>

> Perhaps the natural family is unaware? Perhaps they, too,

> are 'gagged' by a publication ban? Perhaps they do not have the

> education or stability to adequately convey their thoughts? At

worst,

> the inconceivable, perhaps they do not care?

>

> Those issues matter little in a larger scheme because the end

result

> is the same: He was a little child, with much potential to thrive,

> just like my own and whose life was hopelessly stolen. Now, my

voice

> need be far-reaching beyond my daughter and take cause towards

those

> who harm innocent victims without voice. I take issue that the

> children are reduced a nameless beings - if no one else does - I do

> care. As an writer of unknown origin states:

>

> " Tell me why you bother, why waste your time this way. He's only

one

> of millions, does it matter anyway? " And she said, " It matters to

> this one, he deserves a chance to grow. It matters to this one, I

> can't save them all I know. But it matters to this one, I'll help

him

> be what he can be. It matters to this one, and it matters to me. "

>

> Two years after the fact - two separate children's deaths under

> Ministry direction - we remain under a clouded veil of mystery

guised

> as 'protection' of child and family. I also take slight with a

> Ministry who has chosen to amend policy and convey that it is done

on

> behalf of a little boy when, in fact, as MLA Notely pointed

> out: Terms of reference of special case review do not correlate.

> Recommendations posed by our family have been utilized and do not

> acknowledge our child, nor our plight to enlighten of need for

better

> protective practice on behalf of all children - especially with

> disability, but certainly including those without - who enter into

> Government contract. The little boy also is wronged because he is

> being utilized as a scapegoat ... a nameless being who could not

> protect himself in life, nor take arms against deceit in death!

>

> As per Harry Chase's commentary regards to perceived unimportance

of

> amendment in law towards a publication ban: " It isn't going to

> provide any resolution to the parents of that child. " Let me,

please,

> clarify: As a mother affected by the death of her own child,

> certainly there is closure and resolution in lifting the ban of

> silence.

>

> This stems, not from malice, nor retaliation, but serves separate

and

> distinct purposes twofold: The potential to better protect

children:

> Would the public not want to know the history of a person to whom

> they entrust their child's care? Perhaps those whose paid duty it

is

> to offer care to children may realize that they will not be

protected

> should they cause harm and perhaps this may serve as deterrent

where

> it will be less likely that circumstances arise in which

perpetration

> exists!

>

> Additionally, publicizing the name of a child who has perished

offers

> honour towards the importance of an individual's life. By

withholding

> names, distraction of truth and justice furthers the trauma

inflicted

> upon those left behind who are not permitted to remember their

child

> openly and lovingly as a valued member who lived and breathed

during

> his/her time on earth.

>

> Where there is truth, silence need not exist!

>

> Thank you for allowing revelation to exist in journalism - as much

as

> possible given the constraints - under guise of 'protection' .

>

> Anonymous, (but not by choice!)

>

> SINC SAYS:

>

> It is indeed a sad state of affairs when government hides the

truth.

> Thank you for speaking up and our sympathies for the loss of your

> child.

>