CFS censors social worker for questioning CFS practices

That should be a headline. But I would probably get fired if I approached the media.

This is a follow-up to my Nov. 22 post. The evil CFS worker requested that the children in her caseload be tranferred to another worker in our agency. My supervisor agreed to this. There is to be a meeting with my supervisor, the CFS agency and 45 other people - okay, I'm exaggerating. There has been no clear purpose statement for the meeting. It's not being called by the agency but by the authority, which hopefully means they want to discuss the issues about the children. On the other hand, if it's a meeting simply to discuss whether or not my communications were "appropriate" it seems like overkill and would more represent a lynching, so it's just as well I'm not going to be there.

I have done a lot of thinking about values in the process. My supervisor has remained reasonable about the situation, but it is obvious we are not quite on the same page. Examples:

• She has made mention of my writings being "strong". So what's the point here? People should be weak? We shouldn't say important things with strength? I recently came across the Howard/Heidi case study that demonstrates that women are judged more harshly than men, even by other women. It makes me wonder if a man saying the same thing would be heard, not criticized.
• She has pointed out how I referred to the CFS Act and said that would be like someone from outside our agency quoting our agency's policies when commenting on my work. My response to that was, if I was not operating by the agency's policies, I would find it totally appropriate for anyone who had concerns about my work to point that out. I also said that in my mind, all of Manitoba's laws belong to all Manitobans.
• She has said that we have essentially been invited in by CFS to work with children and families. So essentially, CFS has the power so they are beyond reproach? I think having authority gives one greater responsibility to listen and evaluate concerns, not a greater right to ignore anyone who disagrees.

In general, her response leans towards going with the flow. This is also the response I'm detecting from the person, "A" who does "case consulatation" with us (largely a useless exercise of discussion going nowhere with "A" frequently throwing in derogatory comments about the pope and pro-life issues) whom my supervisor consults with. In contrast, my response is, see injustice, address injustice. Evil succeeds because good people do nothing.

I find it disturbing that what should be the central issue, the well-being of children, is not a question that is even on the radar. When someone says something that others don't want to hear but for which they lack an adequate reponse, what is the solution? Attack the person, her right to speak and her motives. The most frustrating thing is beyond that my communications are a discussion topic, the most frustrating thing is that what should be a discussion topic is not.