A ABHORRID SITUATION

Disabled parents are parents too!

Please take the time to read my stories and check my site out

My name is Laurie Edberg.My contact information is



http://tinyurl.com/66vo2

In the Bill For Children's Rights of Divorce under paraghraph 3,13 and
17. It states the child(ren) have the right to reasonable and continued
access and contact to the natural parent(s) and extended family,without
the interferce of the other parent.In the case of child
apprension,CPS/MCFD assumes the role of parent.// HIGHLIGHTS TYPED OUT
FROM A RECENT PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSEMENT: PG 41 PARA 1: MS EDBERG HAS ONLY
3 HOUR VISITATION TWICE A MONTH - ONE CAN CONCLUDE THAT DISABLED OR,ANY
SINGLE PARENT WOULD BE CHALLENGED WITH THIS ACCESS. MORE FREQUENT AND
LONGER PERIODS OF ACCESS THAT PERMIT ROUTINES AND NORMAL. PARENT -
CHILD INTERACTION WORK BEST FOR CHILDREN VISITING THEIR NONRESIDENTIAL
PARENT, IF THAT PARENT IS RESPONSIBLE. PG 42 PARA 2: ATTACHMENT OF THE
BOYS TO THEIR MOTHER IS CERTAIN, AND HER DESIRE TO BE A HANDS ON PARENT
IS CLEAR, AS IS HER INTELLECTUAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPACITY. PG 42 PARA
3: MS EDBERG HAS EXPERIENCED THE HELPLESSNESS AND FRUSTRATION OF BEING
DEPENDANT UPON MCFD FOR SEEING HER CHILDREN, AND AT THE SAME TIME,
HAVING NO COMMUNICATIONS OR CONNECTION WITH THE FOSTER PARENT, WHO
WORKS MORE CLOSELY WITH MCFD THAN SHE DOES. LAURIE APPEARS TOBE
RELATIVELY HEALTHY EMOTIONALLY, HER ANGER IS UNDERSTANDABLE AND SHE HAS
FOCUSED IT IN CONSTRUCTIVE WAYS. PG 116 PARAGRAPHS NUMBERED 1) ASSUMED
DIFFICULTIES DUE TO DISABILITY. 2) REASONING,ANALYTICAL SKILLS
EXCELLENT. 5) COMMENT ON UNDUE STESS LAURIE IS/HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO. 6)
LAURIE IS A SURVIVOR - NORMAL FUNCTIONING. 7) NO DISORDERS OF
DIFFICULTIES,PSYCHOLOGICAL. PG 120 2.6) LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY OF MCFD.
3.3) FOSTEWRPARENTS' DISDAINFUL ATTITUDE TOWARDS MS EDBERG. 3.4) LAURIE
DESIRES MORE POSITIVE RESPECTFUL ARRANGEMENTS WITH OTHER CAREGIVERS. PG
122 5) ATTACHMENTS CONFIRMED. 5.5) BOYS PROUD OF THEIR MOTHER. PG 155
KEY PASSAGE 20.14) MOTHER NEEDS HELP, BOYS NEED THEIR MOTHER. PG 156 4)
MCFD'S FOCUS ON BLAME,SHORTCOMINGS (REAL AND ASSUMED) RATHER THAN ON
STRENGTHS. MORE MONEY SPENT ON KEEPING LAURIE SEPERATE FROM HER
CHILDREN THAN ON PROVIDING APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENTS/SERVICES OF SUPPORT
TEAM.//MY STORY IS AS FOLLOWED// I am a 39 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.We live in Courtenay,BC,Canada.The only crime I
have ever commited 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 have in the past succeeded in
my court cases,until Febuary of 2002.My oldest son was placed in
continuing care in Febuary 2002,because a couple years earlier I was
basically 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 Febuary 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 EACHOTHER AND
THERE IS/WAS NO EVIDIDENCE OF ABUSE. I have a 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. Now (Feb/06)months ater this limited access. My
acces has been further limited to 2 hrs twice a month. My next court
date is set for June 7/06. Eventhough s.15 and s.55 in the BC
legislation and Children,Family Services Act discribes 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