#bcpolitics

November 10, 2025

Today, I received a letter from James Wale, Deputy Director of Child Welfare for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

It was dated November 10, 2025.

Two weeks after I formally requested a review of how this Ministry has handled my son’s case — a case filled with contradictions, unaddressed warnings, and a trail of paperwork that tells the story of a system collapsing under its own weight.

The letter thanks me for my “commitment to advocating” for my son Bennett. It says my “frustration is heard.” It points me toward the same channels I’ve already been navigating for months: the Complaints Program, the Representative for Children and Youth, the Ombudsperson.

It reads like a door politely closing.

What it doesn’t do is address the substance of my complaint — the evidence of medical neglect, the system’s failure to coordinate care, the trauma of a child with complex disabilities who was removed from safety under the guise of “support.”

It doesn’t acknowledge that I’ve already been through every internal process they suggest.

That I’ve been writing, documenting, recording, pleading — not for attention, but for accountability.

The words are careful. Sanitized. Bureaucratically neutral.

And that’s the problem.

Because behind every “thank you for writing” and “I hear your frustration” is a refusal to name what’s really happening — that a six-year-old medically complex child has been left in the care of an untrained system, and his mother is being told to start another round of process while he continues to suffer.

The letter ends with:

“Thank you again for writing, I appreciate the opportunity to respond.”

Every mother who has ever tried to hold a system accountable knows this tone — the polite non-answer that loops you back into the same maze. It’s designed to tire you out, to make you doubt your own endurance.

But I’m not tired. I’m focused.

This letter will be added to the record — part of the growing archive of how the Ministry talks around responsibility while children like Bennett fall through the cracks they refuse to see.

If James truly “hears my frustration,” then he should also hear this:

I’m not giving up.

Not until truth cuts through the script.

Not until the words in their letters start matching the reality of their actions.

Because it’s about a little boy who deserves to come home.

Before you read the letter below, I want you to see it for what it is…

📄 Attached: Letter from James Wale, Deputy Director of Child Welfare (November 10, 2025)

#BringBennettHome #DisabilityJustice #ChildWelfareReform #ParentAdvocacy #SystemicFailure

And let me be clear: this letter was written with prejudice. We’re bringing this to court. I’m done playing along with a system that pretends to care while actively hurting my child.

They Told Me I’m Not Allowed to Have Support

I was told I’m not allowed to bring anyone to my next meeting with them — not even a support person. Meanwhile, they plan to have two social workers there.

Why would you ever tell a mother — who’s being forced to sit through meetings about her own child’s removal — that she has to do it alone? What are they afraid of? Transparency?

I will not be meeting with MCFD alone. I’m allowed support, and I need it. That’s non-negotiable.

They Want Me to Sign “Goals” Based on… What, Exactly?

They’re trying to get me to agree to a list of goals — without first giving me the full disclosure, without explaining what the concerns actually are, and without acknowledging any of the medical documents, letters, or reports I’ve already submitted.

These goals? They’re not based on Bennett’s needs. They’re based on internal narratives, misinformation, and outdated assumptions.

Worse — they’re trying to push for a mental health assessment without saying why. No doctor has recommended it. No explanation has been given. It’s just another way to paint me as unstable when everything I’ve done has been in line with professional advice.

Still No Real Family Plan

MCFD was legally required to create a Family Plan within 30 days of removing Bennett. They didn’t. And what they’ve finally come up with doesn’t include anything from Bennett’s actual care team. No timelines. No reunification path. No transparency.

They’ve placed him in a house full of strangers, ripped him away from every single support he had, and now expect me to sign documents without knowing what they’re even based on.

That’s not reunification. That’s control.

Missed Calls, Missed Visits, Missed Moments

This week, Bennett told me three times that he gets to see me “tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday.” He was excited. He was counting on it.

But nobody has contacted me about Monday’s visit — which now overlaps with school. My guess? They’ll cancel it last minute. Again. Like they did with his FaceTime calls this week. One was missed entirely, another cut short. All without warning.

These calls are part of his routine. They matter. To him and to me.

Only Listening to People Who Just Met Him

They’re ignoring feedback from the therapist who’s worked with Bennett for months. She knows him. She knows how his anxiety presents. She’s trauma-informed.

But instead of relying on her, they’re basing everything off the observations of staff at THE House — people who just met him, who barely understand his needs, and who have a vested interest in reporting that “everything’s fine.”

He deserves better. So do I.

Still No Clarity About Evidence

We’ve asked if they’ll object to Bennett’s doctors’ reports being entered as evidence at the next hearing. They haven’t answered. Why?

Because those reports confirm everything I’ve been saying: I’ve followed every recommendation. I’ve kept my son safe. And I’ve done it with zero support from the systems that were supposed to help us.

At the end of the day, this isn’t about me being difficult. This is about accountability.

It’s about a child with complex needs who was taken from his only consistent caregiver…

…based on undisclosed concerns…

…with no timeline for reunification…

…and no acknowledgement of the harm being done.

We’re not backing down. Not now. Not ever.

📄 If you’d like to read the full letter, let me know. I’ll keep sharing everything — because silence protects them, not us.

Thank you to everyone who continues to stand with us.

#BringBennettHome

#LetKidsHugTheirMoms

#EveryChildMatters

#MCFD

#DisabilityJustice

#StopFamilySeparation

#WeSeeYouBennett

[...] Despite enjoying an ironclad grip on City Hall, the governing party Vision Vancouver and its mayor Gregor Robertson have seen their support crumble on both sides of the political spectrum. Their right flank is upset at what they say is a lack of community consultation in local area development plans, while the left are upset at the way pro-Vision developers are radically transforming the city. Even Robertson admitted recently that he may have moved "too fast" when they tried to rush through massive density increases in the bohemian Grandview-Woodlands neighbourhood. Vision's flagship promise in 2008's election -- to end homelessness by 2015 -- lies in the gutter as street homelessness tripled over the last year. Rents are skyrocketing and Vancouver's left have had to make do with what amounts to lifestyle politics: bike lanes, microlofts and better localvore restaurants.

Meanwhile, Vancouver's second-oldest political party and the unhappy estranged parent of Vision, the Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE), has been trying to shore up its position as YVR's traditional progressive voice. They experienced some internal strife last year when their only sitting politician, School Board Trustee Allan Wong, crossed the floor to Vision in December. Since then, they held their policy convention where an array of policies were passed, including rent controls that bypass impotent provincial governing bodies, turning Vancouver into a Sanctuary City and instituting a food forest in municipal park land.

"No party is putting forward bold ideas and hasn't for ten years," COPE Executive Director Sean Antrim told me over the phone. In 2002, Larry Campbell's COPE slate campaigned on the "Four Pillars Drug Strategy" -- harm reduction, prevention, policing and treatment -- in response to Vancouver's drug problem and the HIV/AIDS epidemic facing low-income neighbourhoods. "Vision has taken the four pillars and made one pillar and a toothpick," Antrim quipped. "We have lots of policing but only a little bit of harm reduction."

COPE has also released a thoroughly researched proposal paper on housing, calling for, among other things, a Municipal Housing Board that will create a landlord registry, build 1000 units of affordable housing a year, and protect tenants from renovictions. "A housing authority is long overdue," Antrim said. "People need homes and the only way they're going to get them is if the municipal government builds them."

"COPE is only party on scene with no backrooms. That means we have to make policy in a big open room with lots of people, but that gives us a huge advantage. We listened to as many people as we possibly could and the policy represents the needs of those groups. COPE is open and democratic about policy. Membership makes those decisions, not backrooms." 

New party OneCity takes "positive" approach

But other prominent political figures on Vancouver's left want to take their own shot at Vision and the increasing gap between haves and have-nots. On Monday, former COPE city council candidate R.J. Aquino, backed by prominent Vancouver progressives like former NDP MLA David Chudnovsky and endorsed by sitting MLA and former BCCLA Chief Executive David Eby, announced the formation of a new progressive municipal party from the steps of City Hall. Aquino's party OneCity takes aim at the rising inequality in Vancouver.

"Those of us that formed OneCity have been in talks for over a year now," Aquino told me over email. "We've talked about how we're looking for a political home where we can do politics in a positive, respectful and inclusive way. We recognize and highlight the growing inequality in this city alongside the opportunities we have to strengthen the city through equity, affordability and diversity."

Of course, there are a number of political parties in Vancouver that could claim to want the same things -- even Vision. With as many as eight municipal organizations, most of which espouse some degree of progressive politics, laying claim to votes within Metro Vancouver -- including COPE, the Greens (the only non-Vision party at City Hall after Adriane Carr was elected in 2011), Cedar, and Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver (NSV, considering entering into an alliance with COPE) -- splintering of the leftist vote is starting to look inevitable.

"The left always needs to stick together," Antrim said of COPE's new political rival. "COPE is a consensus-building, democratic organization. We're going to run a mayoral candidate and majority slates in council, schools and parks because that's what our membership wants."

It's difficult to ignore the ties Aquino and Chudnovsky have with the Coalition of Progressive Electors (COPE) and Vision Vancouver. Both left COPE last year shortly after the party membership voted to cancel their electoral alliance with Vision. While internal party politics and personal conflicts appear to have played a part in their departure, the question hangs over the newly formed party -- particularly now that Vision has announced it will not run a full slate of candidates for council, park board and school board. Aquino and his supporters have said unequivocally however that there are no plans for an alliance with Vision.

People vote based on their values, Aquino says, and encourages them to do so. "There will be those that will vote for COPE and vote for OneCity, those who vote for Vision and vote for OneCity." Rather than focus on alliances, Aquino plans to focus on the 65 per cent of Vancouverites who didn't vote last election. "We're receptive to having an open dialogue with anyone who wishes to talk to us but we're not seeking to make any electoral agreements." [...]