On 14 July 2015, the Supreme Court of B.C. handed down an unprecedented judgment J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216. This is the first case in Canadian legal history in which child protection workers are found liable for misfeasance in public office, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the standard of care. Findings therein confirm our views and support the merit of our cause. Continuous litigations between JP and the MCFD are summarized in JP Aftermath. Our commentary on the Plecas Review Part 1: Decision Time was published on 4 January 2016. If you have evidence of misfeasance or abuse of children in foster care, please come forward and contact us.
Our site contains vast amount of information on child protective services (CPS). Please hover your mouse over the navigation icons below to access the most frequently sought information by various categories of browsers.
Former CPS investigator Carlos Morales, author of "Legally Kidnapped The Case Against Child Protective Services" exposes the nature of the child protection industry in the U.S. Most English speaking nations that practice state-sponsored child removal face the same problem.
The Child Protection Industry
The child protection industry (hereinafter known as the industry unless otherwise specify) is a state-run regime supported by a variety of service providers from inside and outside government offering "child protective services" (CPS) to children and families. It exists in countries where governments have the general statutory power to remove children from their parents if bureaucrats form an opinion that children are in need of protection. The industry is prominent in most English speaking nations (such as the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the U.K.) that ardently speak of freedom, democracy and civil liberty, especially those with a colonial background. There is no general consensus of year in which the industry became operational. We believe that the industry has been in business since the 1940's. In Canada, provincial and territorial governments have their own child protection law enforced by social workers employed by either a ministry or designated non-profit societies. Names of child protection agencies vary in each province. Most names imply child welfare or social services. All of them are funded by tax dollars.
On the surface, state-run child protection services involving professional disciplines such as law, social work and psychotherapy are instituted to encourage family stability and to protect underage children from abuse of their parents or guardians. Child abuse is the physical, sexual or emotional maltreatment or neglect of a child or children. The pie chart on the right is a breakdown of typical child abuse in an English speaking nation. In many child protection regimes, the most common reason of child removal is parental substance abuse and domestic dispute.
Service providers in the industry
The industry provides business and employment opportunities for a wide variety of service providers from different backgrounds inside and outside government. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, they include:
Child protection workers (aka social workers) whose job security depends on the number of state-sponsored child removal. They are legally authorized to remove children from their parents if they form an opinion that children are unsafe at homes. Most of them are unionized government employees and are all paid by taxpayers. Despite their job title suggests benevolent work, their main duty is to enforce a special type of law called child protection law. They investigate reports of child abuse, have the power to remove children based on their opinion (in most jurisdictions no court order is required), re-remove them with or without fresh evidence and act as business broker to distribute child protection tax money to other service providers. They do not earn extra bonus by removing more children, a fact often used to fend off allegation that child removal is driven by money. Critics often overlook the fact that child protection workers are very well paid in view of their skills and education. Their main focus is job security. Moreover, their unique work experience of removing children from their parents has very limited value elsewhere in the labour market, rendering child protection workers almost unemployable outside the industry without intensive job skill retraining.
Lawyers representing child protection agencies and parents. Child protection law is a very specialized field. Lawyers practice child protection law earn a large proportion of their income from child protection litigations. Many parents scrutinized by child protection workers are from the grass root class and cannot afford retaining lawyers to represent them in court. Taxpayers funded legal aid is available to low-income parents if child protection agency has threatened to remove or has apprehended their children. Services covered include litigations on guardianship or custody and contact or access issues related to children in the care.
Foster parents who could earn a very comfortable living by warehousing removed children in their homes.
Supervised visitation workers (those who hired by child protection agencies to oversee parents when seeing their removed children. Approved friends and relatives of parents to act as unpaid supervisors in visitations do not fall in this category.
Psychotherapists paid by child protection agencies (or by parents in some rare occasions) to do counseling and assessment.
Secret agents hired by child protection agencies to mount surveillance on parents.
Court staff and family court judges (the apex service provider in the industry) engaged in child protection litigations.
The aforesaid service providers have one thing in common. They are all paid by tax dollars when rendering their services in child protection related activities. Some derive their income exclusively from state-sponsored child removal. Job security and livelihood of most of these service providers rely on tax dollar funding on child protection activities. Beyond doubt, they are the true beneficiaries of state-sponsored child protection.
Commonalities and differences among child protection regimes
Aside from some minor differences, the child protection industry operates in similar legal, cultural and demographic settings among Canadian provinces and territories. The following are some commonalities:
Mandatory registration of social workers employed by child protection agencies with any professional governing bodies is not required in most regimes. Enactment of legislative authority exempting social workers from mandatory registration before they can practice "social work" is often shrewdly written outside child protection statute to avoid attracting unwanted attention. In B.C., exemption was written in Section 4 of the Social Workers Regulation, not in the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA). There are many different types of social workers. We do not want to confuse our readers that other types of unrelated social workers are involved in the industry. We will use the term child protection worker(s) instead of social worker(s) hereinafter.
Law obliges everyone to report suspect child abuse. Failure to do so is an offence in law and will result in penalty. Reports of suspected child abuse can be made anomalously (ie. informants do not have to disclose their names). If informants choose to identify themselves, they are not legally responsible for information provided in good faith. Their name remains confidential except where required by the court and are protected from harassment for giving the information. This renders child protection a witch hunt frequently abused by estranged spouses, hostile in-laws and malicious parties.
Generally, law authorizes child protection workers the following absolute power (the child protection statute, CFCSA in British Columbia is used as an example below):
removal of children if they form an opinion that children are unsafe under the custody of their parents or guardians, no good evidence or court order (in most jurisdictions) is required by law before this bureaucratic power could be exercised (Section 30 of CFCSA);
right to any information necessary to perform child protection duties, including but not limited to information in public body (such as medical history, criminal records, welfare applications); this right is exempted from confidentiality protection guaranteed in other enactment such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in B.C. (Section 96 of CFCSA);
authority to disclose information obtained without consent of any person (Section 79 of CFCSA);
legal power to oblige the police to act as instructed, often in child removal, escort service to enter homes while conducting fishing expedition, forcibly separate children and parents after supervised visits and prevent parents from discovering locations of foster homes.
In most child protection regimes, there are provisions outside the child protection statute banning publication of identifiable personal information on child protection matters before a court of law. Publication ban applies to parents and other family members as well as the media and the public. The ban is often alleged by child protection officials to protect the privacy of children. This is often used as a convenient excuse for politicians and officials not to answer questions from the media.
There is no provision in law that punish child protection workers if they abuse child removal power. There is no legal mechanism that could expedite return of children if removal is unjustified.
Child protection workers are indemnified by government, or more precisely taxpayers, if they are sued by parents (whom they call "clients") for tort of public malfeasance and bad faith.
In every jurisdiction, foster children and children receiving "services" die while in care.
There is an exceptional over representation of Aboriginal children in most foster care. Statistics suggest that Aboriginal families attract the attention of child protective services ten times higher than non-Aboriginal families. There are compelling reasons to believe that modern child protection is a derivative of the now renounced residential schools where cultural assimilation is the political objective for the purpose of destroying a sovereign nation.
Most child protection regimes also have the mandate of adoption of foster, non-foster and foreign children, a lucrative sister industry of child protection.
Percentage of children in care is relatively very low (range from Prince Edward Island's 0.0052% to Manitoba's 0.0244% in 2011 according to "Foster care in Canada") in every jurisdiction. This effectively prevents the majority of the populace from learning the corruption in the industry and hence protecting the industry from dismantlement.
The modus operandi of handling media inquiry and crisis management after scandals or atrocities hit a child protection regime is more or less the same. Often, privacy is cited as excuse to refuse comment on individual cases. Politicians often allege that child removal decisions are not made lightly and will only return children to their parents if it is safe to do so. When children die in care, expensive inquiry conducted by retired judges is often called to placate public outcry. Oppressed parents never have input in these proceedings.
Most front line child protection workers are members of government employee union and are therefore protected by their unions. As evident in the inquiry of the murder of the 5-year old Phoenix Sinclair by her parents on 11 June 2005, the Manitoba Government Employees Union files a motion to suspend the inquiry on 6 February 2012, which was denied by the Court of Appeal on 16 February 2012. Unions often place interests of their members ahead of public interest. This adds difficulty to restore accountability.
Child protection workers are not a disciplinary force. They have little law enforcement training but are given absolute power to enforce child protection law. Some academicians call them bureaucratic police. Given the nature of their business, unarmed child protection workers need muscle to escort and protect them when they exercise their child removal authority and other oppressive duties. Most child protection statutes oblige the police to provide whatever assistance child protection workers demand. Police officers have no discretion and must obey instructions from these god-like creatures. This effectively reduces the police to their running dog. In B.C., the word "police" occurs 30 times in the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA). Trigger itchy police officers will not hesitate to use force when carrying child removal duty under the direction of child protection workers. Misha Peterson, a 16-year old teenage B.C. mother, was tasered twice by 3 or 4 cops as she clutched her one-month-old son, Taige when child protection worker removed him from her on 22 September 2008.
Most child protection agencies receive federal subsidies from Aboriginal child removals and adoption of foster children.
Service providers in the industry are cohesive and well organized. They share a common financial interest and similar mind set. Many are self-serving, self-boasting and self-righteous. Those who appear in front of the camera are good propagandists. Using twisted logic, unjustified allegations and unqualified remarks, they disseminate messages calculated to protect the industry and to mislead the public to believe in the merit of their activities.
Many child protection regimes exhibit a high turnover in minister (or director in some jurisdictions). Political shuffling is often necessary to fend off criticisms of failing to protect children. Bureaucrats and other service providers know that they will remain much longer than their political masters and are therefore in a position to manipulate incumbents, bombard them with information that enhances job security and mislead them to make policy favourable to the financial interests service providers. Different opinions are suppressed heavy handed. Whistle blowers are threatened with lawsuit and/or retaliation. Under the pretext of protecting privacy, even oppressed parents with children died or abused in foster care are prohibited to go public by law in many jurisdictions. Service providers may conduct their business in secrecy and evade accountability. This renders ameliorative reform impossible.
It becomes more and more common that child protection regimes are now associated with a separate outfit often called "Representative of Children and Youth (RCY)". On the surface, RCY acts as an independent watchdog to create an illusion of transparency and accountability. This pseudo watchdog appears to be critical and pro children. It has no power to overrule decisions made by the child protection agency and only have the mandate to write reports. RCY is a political necessity. When industry-created atrocities occur, it serves as a shrewd political shield to placate public criticisms and outcry that government has done every it could to ensure accountability. The crisis of "Unreported Deaths of Albertan Foster Children" in November 2013 clearly illustrated how politicians will use RCY in due course.
There are differences among various Canadian child protection regimes. The following are some notable distinctions:
Hover your mouse to the name of the province and click to access the link on demographics of the province or capital city.
Efforts have been made to update links in this table. However, links change frequently. Links contain herein may or may not work. Please kindly advise us if you discover any links that are no longer current.
Information in this section was last updated on 12 February 2015.
Children with disabilities are eligible for protective services until age 19.
Provinces in red have a provincial child abuse registry.
In Alberta, it was illegal to publish without a court order lifting the ban until the cabinet approved Bill 11, which lifts the automatic publication ban on children who have come to the attention of the director of children services on 23 July 2014. Politicians in Alberta did not lift the publication ban of their own accord. It was due to the immense public pressure after the media uncovered a large number of unreported deaths of Albertan foster children in November 2013.
In Quebec, child welfare services are provided by youth centres (Centres jeunesse) in 18 administrative regions across the province. Each youth centre is managed by a Director of Youth Protection and is mandated to provide a range of specialized services to ensure the safety and well-being of young people under the age of 18. In addition to protection services, youth centres provide family counseling, legal expertise in custody disputes, adoption referrals and birth-parent searches. An association of youth centres (Association des Centres jeunesse du Quιbec), provides information and advice to centres and over 8,000 youth protection workers in the province.
Since the federal government decentralized child removal authority to provinces and territories, child protection agencies have different names in each jurisdiction. Despite what they are called, they all have the statutory power to remove children based on bureaucratic opinion with or without good evidence. Their names are so diverse. It serves to diffuse public focus if CPS created atrocities in one jurisdiction attracts outcry. The racket is so brilliantly structured to cover all angles when the oppressive and inhumane act of child removal inevitably draws criticism and opposition.
Age of protection ranges from 16 to 19 in Canada.
There are various level of publication ban on the name and photo of foster children died in government care.
Some provinces have more than one statute that authorizes child removal.
Some child removal regimes have child abuse registry to keep record of perceived child abusers. In Canada, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have established a provincial Child Abuse Registry. In addition to guilty plea and court disposition of child protection matters, the opinion of the child and family service agency's Child Abuse Committee that a person has abused a child is sufficient to list a person as a child abuser on the Registry. Employers and other party with the person's written consent may apply for access to determine if a person is listed on the Registry. Other than an expensive, time consuming and complicated judicial review application in the Supreme courts, we are unsure whether there is other layman-friendly venue a person could use to rectify wrong bureaucratic opinion from the Child Abuse Committee.
Unlike criminal records in the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) where addition, removal and usage of CPIC data are governed by law [for example the Criminal Records Act (R.S., 1985, c. C-47)], record entries in Manitoba's child abuse registry are at the discretion of members in the Child Abuse Committee. Opinions from the Committee could be subjective, arbitrary, biased and could be made without a fair hearing. Since legal rights in the Canadian Charter only applies to criminal trials, parent's right to be tried fairly within a reasonable time and the presumption of innocence is being circumvented by the legal design that all child protection matters are civil in nature. Having a record in the child abuse registry is derogatory and may have a serious adverse effect on a person's ability to seek employment, emigration, adoption or a political career.
The Gary and Melissa Gates case in Texas aired by CBS 42 Investigates News on 10 July 2008 sheds light on how child abuse registry could be unjustly used against parents perceived as uncooperative and how bureaucrats could use it as a means to publish parents. Child abuse record could open another oppressive arena that may take wrongfully accused parents years and huge legal expenses to have their names removed from the registry.
Means and Methods
Since inception of the industry, service providers have invented means and methods that appear seemingly reasonable, fair and imperative to child protection. Many means and methods are condoned by law or prescribed by court orders. In reality, these modus operandi are subjective and often carry oppressive hidden objectives. Many are futile or counter productive in archiving their alleged goals but extremely effective in archiving their hidden objectives. Our "tactics" page contains some of the specifics of the following means and methods:
Means and Methods
supervised visitation with removed children (usually 2 visitations a week of 2 hours duration in a public or designated private location, supervisors are often paid ministry appointed agents)
fishing expedition to hunt for incriminating information to justify removal or to step up custody application; note that many children were removed before CPS knows much about parents, fishing expedition is therefore necessary to obtain or to fabricate more incriminating information to be used in court
home study on prospective adoptive parents or biological parents under child protection scrutiny
Home studies on on prospective adoptive parents are often paid service. It is a money making device for service providers to take advantage of those who want to adopt. Home studies on biological parents are free and often imposed on unwilling parents using their children as pawn. They amount to home search without search warrant. Under the pretext of child protection, child protection workers could enter homes and search at will. This power is not empowered by law but by the absolute child removal authority. This power is often abused by other parties such as the police and at times, Crown prosecutors. Our charter right protection of not subject to unreasonable search is meaningless.
parenting capacity assessment by a ministry paid psychologist
fishing expedition conducted by expert third party, often medical history, family background, record of substance abuse and mental disorder of all family members are investigated and reported to child protection workers for further action
retaliation on parents if they go public or disagree with child protection workers, often by remove or re-remove of children, termination of visitation, stepping up legal actions.
set example to deter oppressed parents from going public and use fear to silence opposition
alienating parents by discouraging removed children to have contact with parents, making negative or false statements on parent to induce tension, teaching removed children to disagree with parents for the ultimate purpose of breaking bond and use it as justification to seek continuing custody order (also known as permanent custody order in some jurisdictions)
Synopsis: In 1992, parent obtained a provincial court order in Ontario obliging the Children's Aid Society (CAS) to return removed child, CAS obtained a stay of the order for return from the Court of Appeal pending appeal and a motion for the introduction of fresh evidence, the order for the return of the child to the mother was set aside and ordered that the child be made a Crown ward, without access, for the purposes of adoption, partly due to the new evidence (introduced by CAS) of the consistent and repeated assertions of the child that she regarded her foster family as her real family, that she did not want to see her birth mother, this case suggests the following:
"child protection" workers do not need to return children even if there is a provincial court order of return, apply for a stay of order and appeal are common legal tactics, hence rendering their power exceeding that of provincial court judges;
"child protection" statute and legal process are hopelessly lopsided against parents;
removed children are motivated to stay in foster care (often by way of the offer of money, vacation trips and toys) and to alienate their birth parents as the child's negative emotional, psychological and physical reactions are legal grounds (established by this case) of permanent removal
CPS Complaint Process
Most CPS regimes have a complaint process that child protection workers will not hesitate to tell parents to use. They know this process will get parents absolutely nowhere because no one have the power or the will to reverse their decisions. For example, the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) in B.C. has a web page titled "Making a Complaint" and another page called "Complaints Process For Youth"
A typical CPS complaint process provides complainants two options: resolution with in-house CPS staff and an external review through the Office of the Ombudsman. Unless parents have tangible evidence that will embarrass the CPS agency if they go public, in-house CPS staff often rally behind front-line workers and support their decisions. If parents are not satisfied with the outcome, they could go to the next level and request an external review from the Office of the Ombudsman who has no statutory power to make binding decisions on CPS agencies.
Be mindful that this complaint process is time-consuming. Parents must make effort to take time off work and organize documents to support their complaints. At the end, this futile process often gets them nowhere after months of waiting and intensive work. In essence, this process is designed to decorate fairness and openness but serve to wear and tear parents.
That said, if parents feel that they are not treated fairly, they should still jump the hoops and file their complaints. The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) guarantees that there will not be any negative consequences to anyone, including children, youth and families, as a result of making a complaint. Assuming that this is true, there is no downside risk. But do not expect that such effort will result in prompt return of their children. High complaint statistics will reflect negatively on the CPS regime by their political masters. If parents do not complain because they known that it is a waste of time, CPS will be laughing as such attitude will guarantee low complaint statistics that service providers could use to boast success of the industry.
It is also noteworthy to remark that:
The aforesaid guarantee of no negative consequences does not include going public. The industry hates unwanted publicity. Retaliation and threat of lawsuit are common when the media airs abuse of power and industry-created atrocities. News footage in the next section confirm the foregoing.
State sponsored child removal (or child protection as government would like its citizens to believe) is a government monopoly, which functions under the rules of command economy. It is under the strong influence, if not the direct control, of a cartel of bureaucrats and service providers whose job security, livelihood and main source of income derived from child removal. In Canada, child protection agency could be a provincial ministry (or department in some provinces) or a designated "non-profitThe term non-profit society could be misleading. The society itself may not be pursuing profit. But their directors and employees may. Directors and managers of many non-profit societies draw a high salary and receive good remuneration." society (such as the children's aid society in Ontario). They have different names suggesting child and family welfare business nature. Despite the aforesaid minor differences, all child protection agencies are funded by tax dollars. Child protection workers achieve monopoly not by competitive edge, advance technology or lack of viable substitute, but by law. Legislation empowers them as the sole agent to legally remove children from their parents. Competition is prohibited. If any party other than delegated agents remove children, kidnapping is committed. Be mindful that once a child is removed, child protection agency becomes the sole guardian. Biological parents will be charged of kidnapping if they repossess their removed children. Apprehension of the Toronto couple Hung-Kwan Yuen and Anna Zhang in Richmond, B.C. on 25 October 2009 is just one of the many examples. Even unauthorized contact with removed children will have serious consequences (such as termination of supervised visitation, escalation of custody application). This does not mean that removed children are always safe in government's care.
Tragic deaths of young children caused by their parents or foster parents always draw intense public attention. The murder of 19-month-old Sherry Charlie in 2002 and the murder of the three young Schoenborn children (Kaitlynne, 10, Max, 8, and Cordon, 5) in Merritt, B.C. on April 6, 2008 are examples of the foregoing. Ironically, the child protection industry hits a jackpot when young children were killed by their parents or in foster homes. Government often responds by hiring a retired judge (the Hon. Ted Hughes O.C., Q.C. appears to be a popular choice) to conduct an inquiry and puts more money in child protection. The Phoenix Sinclair inquirys budget hiked from $4.7 million to $6.1 million in February 2013 and finally cost $14 million. Taxpayers are always an indirect victim. Although the child protection industry fails to fulfill its duty of protecting children, no service provider is held accountable. The identity of child protection workers in charge of the case is seldom made public. The industry suffers little damage when atrocities occur and emerges as a winner by getting more funding and power.
The child protection industry operates in the following unique ways that you will not find in any market economy:
Because of the absolute power to remove children granted by child protection statute, service providers may define child abuse and control the demand of their services. Child protection workers will exercise their child removal authority to ensure job security and to use up their budget. Empirical data supporting the foregoing can be found in "Our Comment on When Talk Trumped Service" and will not be repeated here.
Critical opinions and dissatisfaction of clients (parents commonly called by CPS service providers) are often ignored or suppressed with no consequence to service providers in the industry. Complaints often yield little results. Complainants with children under the provincial protection age limit run the risk of attracting retaliation. Fear, secrecy, ignorance and blind faith in government are their keys to success. The following are some cases of CPS retaliation after parents went public to air the corruption:
Many oppressed parents remain silent due to fear of retaliation and feeling of hopelessness.
Child protection budget often increases after service providers fail their duty to protect. Insufficient training, case work overload, lack of resources are often cited as reasons of failure in subsequent inquiry. Recommendations always require more funding. Incidentally, the child protection industry benefits financially when it fails to do its job. The common sense management principle of rewarding success and reprimanding failure does not apply in this unique state and special interests joint monopoly.
In view of the above absurdities, restoring accountability is impossible. Government is inevitably open to corruption and racketeering.
Factors contributing to success of the industry
Despite failures to protect children and outcry from oppressed families, the industry prevails and continues to get gradual increase in budget every year. Some foster children are sexually abused, murdered and almost all are traumatized by forceful removal from their parents. No service provider is held accountable for industry-created atrocities. This remarkable success is not archived by fulfilling the noble mandate of protecting children but because of the following factors:
Alberta Human Services Minister Dave Hancock and service providers damage control propaganda
Politician, bureaucrats and service providers locked arms to defend the child protection industry after the media uncovered their failure to protect children, effort to cover up, refusal to provide death information and lack of accountability.
Desperate damage control cannot fool those with discernment of good or bad, right or wrong. History will prove that such self serving political and propaganda ruse cannot save the downfall of an oppressive regime.
The industry uses massive public resources to scrutinize a very small percentage of the children population (data in previous section indicate that less than 0.031% of children population were removed in 2012). Most of the families with children removed are from the grass root class with little clout, know-how and resources to fight such formidable rivalry.
The rest of the population has little or no knowledge and first hand experience of the true nature of child protection. About 50% of the population do not have children and are of the opinion that problems surrounding the industry do not concern them. Apathy is their natural response. After witnessing the destructive power of the industry, most oppressed parents fear retaliation and remain silent.
The corruption in the industry and the oppressive means used by some service providers are so extravagant that most people would find incredible in a free and democratic nation.
Service providers are extremely militant, solidary and well organized when challenged. Their response time to conduct coordinated damage control is less than a day when crisis occurs. This suggests that service providers have been sleeping together for a long time before such impressive rapport could be built. The press conference called by service providers and elected officials after the media aired unreported deaths of Albertan foster children in November 2013 demonstrated the foregoing. Twisted logic, absurd allegations, unqualified demand of recognition of merit are common in propaganda produced by service providers attempting to confuse our moral compass.
Service providers occupy the moral high ground of child protection. When challenged, they often pull out their big gun: the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Self serving service providers will proudly allege that Canada is a signatory of this convention and is therefore bound by international law to remain status quo. Since we raised this issue, we are aware that the web sites of some child protection regimes have included this notion to further justify the value of their existence.
Means and methods used by the industry on parents are so oppressive and inhumane that most people will find unbelievable in a democratic country that ardently speaks of freedom, human rights and liberty.
Judges are apex service providers in the industry. Contrary to public belief, the judiciary fails to fairly adjudicate child protection matters. Most decisions handed down in courts are in favour of child protection agency. Using legal babble such as "erring on the side of caution", some rulings are so lopsided that arbitrary child removals are condoned. Our views are further elaborated in "Flaws of CFCSA" and will not be repeated here.
Service providers have strong influence on their political masters. Critical views are filtered by bureaucrats and seldom reach politicians. High turnover rate of children minister ensures that policy is dictated by bureaucrats.
Impacts on children, families and society
From time to time, child protection regimes are troubled by scandals and CPS-created atrocities. Our "Cases" page contains a number of embarrassing cases from various jurisdictions attesting the foregoing. Crisis such as the death of Sherry Charlie in British Columbia (2002) and the murder of 5-year old Aboriginal Phoenix Sinclair in Manitoba (2005) turned out to be an opportunity to get a larger budget. Incidentally, both victims are Aboriginal children.
Young children are often used to raise funds and to garner public support. At times, they are used to serve a political purpose. Residential school is an example of the foregoing when government used cultural assimilation to destroy the First Nation as a sovereign power that may threaten the legitimacy of the colonial regime. Politicians like kissing babies to portray that they are family-oriented, approachable, trustworthy, likable, empathetic and popular. Elected officials from different political orientations are mostly pro child removal for political and economic reasons. Of course, they will never admit this and would like the public to believe that child removal decision is not made lightly and children are removed for their safety. You will hear this script on TV when a children minister is interviewed by reporter after an atrocity occurs in foster home.
Generally speaking, attempts to reduce a child protection budget or to restrict the absolute power of service providers are met with resistance at the political level due to the risk of perceived apathy towards child welfare, the appearance of failure to protect vulnerable children, the risk of retaliation when the financial interest of the child protection industry is jeopardized and reduction of federal subsidy if fewer Aboriginal children are removed.
The notion of wrongful child removals and abuse of power is never addressed. Politicians turn a blind eye to these problems and consider that they do not exist. Decision makers do not appear to realize that some atrocities involving death of young children are unpreventable. An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does the truth become error because nobody will see it. In many circumstances, more tax dollars allocated to child protection has little bearing in mitigating child safety risk. State funding certainly provides financial and job security incentive for service providers to remove more children. Under the pretext of child protection, social workers have absolute statutory power and job security incentive to do so with little repercussion. No one could hold them accountable. They act as business brokers to disburse funds in the child protection budget. Service providers in the industry all flock up to aggrandize. This opens government to corruption and racketeering. Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they are ratified into law. It is safe to contend that more children will be removed and more foster children will die in care if more tax dollars are put into the child protection industry.
Impacts of state-sponsored child removal on children, families and society are discussed as follows:
The Negative Effects of Foster Care on Removed Children
Critical Injuries and Deaths of B.C. Children and Youth "In Care" of MCFD
According to "Representative's Report - Critical Injuries and Deaths: Reviews and Investigations" published quarterly by the Representative of Children and Youth, the number of critical injuries and deaths of B.C. children and youth who were "in care" or receiving reviewable services are listed below:
Critical Injuries Reported
7 November 2007
1 June 2007 and 30 Sept. 2007
26 February 2008
1 Oct. 2007 and 31 Jan. 2008
9 July 2008
1 Feb. and 31 May 2008
4 November 2008
1 June and 30 Sept. 2008
18 March 2009
1 Oct. 2008 to 31 Jan. 2009
9 July 2009
1 Feb. 2009 to 31 May 2009
12 Nov. 2009
1 June 2009 30 Sept. 2009
15 March 2010
1 Oct. 2009 31 Jan. 2010
7 July 2010
1 February 2010 to 31 May 2010
4 November 2010
1 June 2010 to 30 September 2010
15 March 2011
1 October 2010 31 January 2011
14 July 2011
1 February 2011 31 May 2011
17 November 2011
1 June 2011 30 September 2011
14 March 2012
1 October 2011 31 January 2012
17 July 2012
1 February 2012 31 July 2012
28 November 2012
1 June 2012 30 September 2012
14 March 2013
1 October 2012 31 January 2013
12 July 2013
1 February 2013 31 May 2013
19 February 2014
1 June 2013 30 September 2013
15 April 2014
1 October 2013 31 January 2014
3 September 2014
1 February 2014 31 May 2014
15 January 2015
1 June 2014 30 September 2014
6 May 2015
1 October 2014 31 January 2015
19 October 2015
1 February 2015 31 May 2015
(n) where n denotes the number of cases of critical injuries and deaths while children were in care of MCFD.
[The above table was last updated on 21 October 2015.]
Children in the "care" of MCFD commit suicide, die of accident, are killed or abused (see MCFD's statistics). A web site called "Protected to Death by CPS" has been established in memory of children died when "in care" of "child protection" service.
According to the joint major study released by the Representative for Children and Youth and the Provincial Health Officer on February 23, 2009:
41.2% of children (12-17) in care appear in youth court (Table 1 of this joint major study) versus 6.4% of general population, be mindful that children under the age of 12 cannot be charged of criminal offence in Canada;
According to the Growing Up In B.C. report released by the Representative for Children and Youth and the Provincial Health Officer on October 18, 2009:
Children in care are nearly three times more likely to consider suicide and nearly six times more likely to have attempted suicide at least once than youth who have never been in care.
Aboriginal children and children in care are less likely to experience
success in school.
Children in care are more likely to engage in risky behaviour, such as
using tobacco, alcohol and drugs.
Children in care are more likely to have gone to bed hungry.
Youth in care consistently talked about the challenges they face in
everyday life, such as creating and maintaining long-term relationships,
having no-one to see them graduate, not having adult support or
financial means to encourage them to do well in school or apply for
According to "Legal delays could double number of cases tossed" (Vancouver Sun 29 July 2011), 65 criminal cases have been tossed in British Columbia Provincial Court from 1 January 2011 to 29 July 2011 because of significant delays in the legal system. If the trend continues, the number of cases stayed in 2011 because of delays could be more than double the 56 cases dropped in 2010.
The Ministry often seeks child protection hearings that require many court days. This will guarantee that hearings will take place far in the future, hence lengthening the child holding period for the benefit of the "child protection" industry and allowing time to fabricate "evidence" to support the Ministry's legal actions. Many of these hearings are eventually canceled by the Ministry due to return of children to parents in some weak cases (to avoid their abuse of power being uncovered in hearings) or beating parents to agree to the Ministry's position. These hearings are often canceled shortly before hearing dates. This scheduling tactic deprives scarce and expensive court time to hear other more important cases. As a result, more and more criminal cases are judicially stayed due to a breach of charter right of failing to try within a reasonable time [Section 11 (b) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]. Although criminal cases dropped are often of a minor nature, the function of the judiciary to provide efficient and timely adjudication is impaired. Society suffers because some criminals walk free and may re-commit due to a lack of deterrent.
The previous point also confirms the view of the American scholar Professor Stephen Baskerville written in the Insight Magazine (June 18, 2001) that it is to the interest of the judiciary to pack the courts with cases:
"The one great principle of the law," wrote Dickens, "is to make business for itself." Like all courts, family courts complain of being overburdened. Yet it is clearly in their interest to be overburdened, since judicial powers and salaries, like any other, are determined by demand for their services. "Judges and staff ... should be given every consideration for salary and the other perks or other emoluments of their high office," Judge Page suggests, adding that divorce-court judges should aim to increase their volume of business. "As the court does a better job more persons will be attracted to it," he observes. He also writes, "The better the family-court system functions, the higher ... the volume of the persons served." A court "does a better job" by attracting more mothers (who file the overwhelming majority of divorces) with windfall divorce settlements.
Publicity of criminal cases tossed will create public concern. This will pressure government to hire more judges and build more courthouses to ease the artificially created caseload. Taxpayer is a vulnerable and easy target.
Self serving financially motivated service providers have strong influence, if not direct control, of government child protection policy and legislation. In a command economy where there is little accountability and transparency, corruption and racketeering are inevitable. It results in more social problems and high tax burden to society.
Corruption is the abuse of trust and power for the benefits of parties entrusted with power. In the child protection industry, corruption exhibits in form of using children as pawns to coerce acceptance of services that results in the financial benefits and job security of service providers. Not all acts of corruption involve demand and payment of bribes or gifts. If carefully structured, corruption can take advantage of loopholes in law and becomes completely legal. Service providers control the demand of their services, render services and legally collect payments from taxpayers. At a broader level, provincial and territorial governments seek more subsidies (transfer payments) from the federal government by removing Aboriginal children. Beneficiaries maximize profit and job security at the expense of taxpayers and often destruction of families. In the current legal system, it is almost impossible to convict any service providers of wrongdoing despite their blatant abuse of power.
We describe corruption in the child protection industry structural because there is little or no meaningful check and balance that provides a timely corrective mechanism to effectively punish and deter perpetrators from engaging in self-serving corruptive practice. This notion is analyzed at the macro and micro level in the setting of British Columbia.
At the Macro Level
For corruption to become structural at the macro level, the following prerequisites are required.
presence of financial incentives
Financial incentive is the most common motivating factor in corruption. The following sources provide enticing financial incentives:
In many child protection cases, taxpayers pay hundred of thousands for each child removed. A good percentage of these children are removed unnecessarily ...
(click for more details)
... due to absurd reasons like alleged minor physical discipline, poor personal hygiene, unfounded allegations of neglect or abuse from malicious informants (most common estranged spouse).
Tax dollars allocated to "protect" children (MCFD) and to provide legal aid to parents with child removed (via the Ministry of Attorney General) create financial incentive to various service providers in the child protection industry to aggressively market their services to the government and to create demand of their services.
Compared with tax dollars in government budgets, this is a much smaller incentive. But the effects on families are devastating. Few oppressed parents have sufficient wealth that disqualifies them from receiving legal aid. Occasionally, children from more affluent parents are removed. In most cases, parents will commit all their resources to rescue their children from being kept in government "care". Lawyers representing parents thus have the opportunity to milk their clients dry. Opposing lawyers representing MCFD would work in concert to ensure more billable hours are created for their mutual benefits. Many parents end up losing their homes, their job and, above all, their children.
possession of vast financial resource, special and absolute statutory power
Empowered by the provincial Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA), Ministry-employed child protection workers have the unique and near absolute statutory power to remove children from their families. They do not need a court order to remove a child. This power has been abused by various parties (such as estranged spouses, police, Crown prosecutors, malicious parties including friends, relatives and neighbors) for purposes other than child protection.
CFCSA allows child protection hearings to circumvent due process in law that offers a fairer trial based on good evidence. This belief is supported by:
Section 66 of CFCSA stipulates that hearings under this Act is civil in nature and may be informal. This may put some parents at ease as they are not being tried for criminal matters that may result in a criminal record. This is an illusion that parents must be aware of. Because the hearing is civil in nature, all legal rights in Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply. The consequence of CFCSA hearings is far more serious to most parents than any penalty in the Criminal Code, namely losing the custody of your children to the government and get a child abuser record in a central state registry in some countries (such as the United States).
CFCSA is not only lopsided but also vague in providing unambiguous legal definitions in many ways. For instance, it does not define what constitute neglect, or the age limit above which parents are allowed to leave their children at home or to go to school without adult supervision. Silence in law allows room for child protection workers to exercise their discretion and subjective judgment. Criminal code clearly defines the age of statutory rape. Our election act clearly stipulates the age above which a Canadian citizen can vote. Why CFCSA cannot be more specific to avoid abuse of power and double standard?
Parents have little or no representation in the legislation of child protection law and policy-making related to child protection. The Canadian Bar Association published an article titled Child Protection Overload by Michelle Mann. The Legislative Reforms column on the right hand side stated that the child protection legislative reform expert panel in the Ontario government consisting of judges, social workers, doctors and other child protection professionals. Parents are excluded.
They have the authority and the motivation (for job security reason) to spend the tax dollars entrusted in their hands for child protection activities and hence are in a position to broker tax dollars to various service providers in the industry.
While Canadians are asked to tighten their belts in the midst of an economic recession, the 2009 B.C. Budget Update (announced on September 3, 2009) allocated new fundings to MCFD over a 3-year period to "care for and protection" of vulnerable children. This Budget Update specifically said that the HST (a controversial tax introduced) is needed to provide "social services" that are fundamental to a "high quality of life". This proves how powerful and influential special interests groups are on government.
lack of political will to change child protection law
Despite what the legislative intent was, the root of this corruption lies on the absolute power to remove children from their families. Atrocities like the Sherry Charlie tragedy and Native Indian residential school are possible because government has this statutory power. An elected assembly can trample a man's right as much as a totalitarian tyranny.
To give a brief overview of how serious the lack of political will is, please click here to watch the news footage called "Children's Aid Society Oversight" made by CHCH News Live @ 5:30.
Although elected officials are bombarded by reports from bureaucrats alleging how successful and necessary the child protection regime is, law makers are not totally ignorant on the corruption. Theoretically, they are supposed to serve the people. In reality, many elected officials are more concerned on getting more campaign money and votes to win the next election and to further their private interests. This pitfall in democracy applies to all levels of government in nations that practice democracy. Most politicians perceive support of revoking child removal authority politically suicidal as this will inevitably antagonize powerful special interest groups whose livelihood depends on this authority. They lack the farseeing insight to see that these hideous activities will eventually backfire on them in a scale beyond their control and imagination.
The late former U.S. Republican Georgia State Senator Nancy Schaefer spoke on corruption in child protective services (CPS) in Washington, D.C. on 26 September 2008. There are elected officials who speak the truth and act according to their conscience and principle, not on chance or party platform. There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but because conscience tells one it is right. We did not discover this video until 11 October 2009. Mrs. Schaefer precisely and concisely summarized our findings in the Canadian setting.
Against insurmountable odds and political unpopularity, she adamantly speaks against corruption in the child protection industry, advocates parental rights and tabled a bill to reform "Child Protective Service" (CPS). The strong points of her bill were compromised. Her political colleagues told her to live with this or to face sanction. This threat was made good and she lost her senatecy. Her speech at the
World Congress on Families (August 11, 2009) is linked here. This corruption is epidemic in most English-speaking nations.
In her speech at the World Congress on Families on 16 August 2009, she confirmed that her report on CPS corruption cost her senatecy. She was told by her colleagues that if she helped families under CPS scrutiny, she will lose her job. The perception of political suicidal in supporting revoking child removal authority is unfortunately well founded. Are elected officials supposed to serve their constituents or be a yes man to their party boss? Is there any cause worthwhile losing a political position? Real political career focuses on protecting the best interests of the people, protecting justice and speaking the truth.
Mrs. Schaefer and her husband Bruce were found dead in their Habersham county home on Friday, 26 March 2010. The police promptly classified their death as a murder suicide and closed the case. Her sudden and tragic death is considered by some a murder caused by her involvement in uncovering corruption in the child protection industry.
Given so much evidence of corruption and abuse of authority, why elected officials do not act? Are they elected by their constituents to protect their best interests, not that of the special interest groups in the child protection industry? Despite so many problems arising from state-sponsored child removal activities, why government still wants to retain this notorious child removal authority? To "protect" child? Or to oppress the people if necessary? Are politicians involved and benefit from this industry in any way, directly or indirectly? Why a senator who is honest enough to speak the truth and has the courage and political will to urge reform is sacked, not by the people through a democratic election but by the party boss? Who else are involved in this corruption if we dig deeper? Who else can people rely on to hold those in power accountable. We shudder at the thought. People in high social positions are obliged to act with integrity, honor, kindliness and generosity. Can we find these qualities in our politicians nowadays?
lack of public and media interest
Many British Columbians choose not to have children. To many of these childless people, this corruption is as remote as a problem in the moon.
Despite the massive abuse of authority, the media does not provide enough coverage to attract public attention. Few journalists would believe the full extent of the abuse many parents suffered. Above all, the abuse in many cases is so similar that most journalists find no new hook (fresh information of news value) in airing cases of this nature again.
In our humble opinion, news value in child protection issues is of significant public interests that warrants production of a 2-hour special TV program. There is ample amount of empirical evidence and credible testimonies from both parents and professionals from different disciplines that suggest well hidden problems in this industry.
judicial failure to adhere to guiding principles in CFCSA and to provide fair and timely adjudication
failure to take child's views into account when decisions relating to a child are made:
Children are seldom allowed to speak in court or even attend the hearing. In January 2009, we had witnessed a 12-year old girl told to leave the courtroom by a lady-judge despite her desire to express her views when both MCFD and her parent had no objection to her presence. The judge's decision is an error in law as:
she had deprived the court to hear and consider all relevant information surrounding a custody order application [contravenes Section 4(1) of CFCSA];
failure to follow the guiding principle of taking the child's view into consideration [contravenes Section 2(d) of CFCSA].
No reason was given by this judge other than her view that the presence of the child is inappropriate. Frankly, this judge will have a hard time to rule in favor of MCFD if the child is given the opportunity to say that her father has not physically disciplined his children and she desperately wanted to go home. Refusal to hear directly from the children and allowing MCFD to monopolize communication between the child and the court is one of the main pitfalls in child protection hearing.
This error in law provides ground to appeal if the parent is rich enough to appeal in higher court. In criminal trials when the police, Crown prosecutor or a trial judge has made a serious error either in law or in procedure, higher court judges may quash the charge(s) against the accused. This remedy is unheard of in appeals against errors in law made in child protection matters. In the best case scenario, higher court judge will rule that a child's view be heard and considered and a custody hearing be conducted again, usually a few months away. In the meantime, children still remain in the "care" of MCFD. By appealing, parents effectively lengthen separation with their loved ones.
failure to preserve kinship ties and a child's attachment to the extended family (failure to place removed children in extended family is often allowed or unopposed by court);
failure to make and implement decisions relating to children in a timely manner (the fact that most child protection hearings take years to complete speak to this effect).
Despite that judges enjoy total immunity in carrying out their duties, these failures amount to the following:
contradiction against the spirit of law in preserving nature justice and fairness;
betrayal of the legislative intent of CFCSA in protecting the rights of children to be nourished in a safe, loving and caring family environment;
Timeliness of Adjudication
CFCSA requires that child protection hearings are conducted in a timely manner. MCFD lawyers often use various tactics to maximize child holding period: (Click here for more information.)
setting a hearing in the afternoon, knowing that an adjournment weeks and months later may be required for going over the allotted time;
making the case appear more complicated than it is, thus requiring several more days of hard-to-get court time;
delivering case materials to parents a day before court, sometimes just before the hearing, hoping that parents will seek an adjournment to prepare their defence (this tactic is not only unfair but also violates a provision in Canon 4 of the Chapter 1 Canons of Legal Ethics in the Professional Conduct Handbook, it may warrant filing a complaint of professional misconduct to the Law Society);
using mediation shortly before hearing to stall court process;
Even if parents win the custody a Section 35 presentation hearing (which rarely happens), they have already been separated with their children for at least three to four months. The CFCSA mandated time of 45 days to set a protection hearing date is practically unheard of. Most parents who lose the interim custody at the Presentation Hearing stage could potentially face years of separation with their children.
For very young children, MCFD can use this prolonged child holding as justification for obtaining continuing custody order. If the Ministry is successful, children will be adopted and parental tie will be permanent severed.
Next to the more authoritative judicial adjudication, dispute/complaint resolution procedures also fail. On the surface, there are sufficient dispute resolution procedures in place to allow parents to have fair adjudications of their complaints. In fact, complaint process involving team leaders, local community service managers, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Office of the Ombudsman and Representative for Children and Youth is merely a decoration of fairness and openness. Bureaucrats within MCFD seldom overturn their own decisions and tend to rally behind the back of their colleagues. Bureaucrats outside MCFD can only make recommendations and have no binding authority. Even a provincial court judge's decision can be ignored without any consequence or overturned with or without fresh evidence at the discretion of child protection workers. This is possible because they have the statutory power to remove children again if they believe that return of children will jeopardize child safety. Exercising this power does not amount to contempt of court or an attempt to seek res judicata (relitigation of settled matters).
After all, complaint process is not time efficient. Bureaucrats will have plenty of time to use removed children as pawns to fabricate evidence to incriminate their parents.
active involvement of powerful and influential collaborators
Child protection workers do NOT earn an extra dime when they remove more children. But in doing so, they do create more cases to justify their job and hence enhancing their job security and creating more reasons to ask for a larger budget in the future. The biggest nightmare to civil servants is the elimination of their position because their service is no longer needed. You cannot rely on someone to solve a problem when their livelihood depends on the very existence of that problem. Be mindful that their unique work experience of removing children from their families is not quite marketable in other sectors of the job market.
The power to spend a huge government budget will inevitably attract collaborators. Beyond doubt, money talks. Collaborators include but not limit to the following parties:
MCFD's lawyers are hired guns from external law firms who earn large amount of retainer in representing MCFD in court.
On the other side of the fence, lawyers representing parents who do not qualify for legal aid will milk their clients dry in no time.
Parents on legal aid will get a lawyers paid by tax dollars, who will soon lose incentive to provide best legal representation when their legal aid hours run out.
Psychologists and counselors are paid thousands of dollars for each report they write in assessing and counseling parents. They seldom bite the hands that feed them.
Proprietors who run programs such as anger control management, children who witnessed abuse counseling, women with abusive spouse counseling, receive countless compulsory referrals from child protection workers. In most cases, these counseling fees are paid by government. Sometimes parents are forced to pay for these programs imposed. It is noteworthy to mention that some of these proprietors are ex-social workers.
Foster parents are guaranteed a very decent tax-free income (support as it is called) for "caring" removed children. Many of them lack the skills to earn the same level of income elsewhere. Child protection is their bread and butter. After making several misleading responses (including an allegation that MCFD does not pay foster parents at all) in 2009, MCFD reluctantly disclosed in a Freedom of Information application that foster parenting is a 9-figure industry in British Columbia each year.
Supervised visit workers are paid to watch parents when seeing their children on supervised visits. Often, they write bad reports on parents to protect their jobs as child protection workers have the discretion to hire supervised visit workers.
Most of these collaborators become die hard supporters of MCFD's child removal business as their livelihood depends on it.
low risk of exposure and punishment
Perpetrators in the child protection industry seldom fear any risk of exposure or any personal consequences because of the following reasons:
The successful strategy of using vast public resources to oppress a very small percentage of the population (about 0.2% historically, less than 1% including their extended family members) mainly from the underprivileged class under the pretext of child protection minimizes resistance from the populace. Given the fact that the unaffected 99% of the population is ignorant or apathetic, this strategy is extremely effective.
In 21st century Canada where governments ardently speak of freedom, democracy, human rights and natural justice, their wrongdoings are so absurd and serious that most Canadians who have no first hand experience with them will find unbelievable. Those who tell the truth are perceived as disgruntled parents trying to get even. Be mindful that parents who received "services" have the first hand experience, not judges, not service providers, not the yes men in parliament.
Some parents are warned that if they go public to expose the perpetrators, there will be consequences. If you do not believe this, please watch this private video recording posted in youTube on December 18, 2007 called "Child Protection Reform". Most oppressed parents are fearful of retaliation and remain silent. They are from the underprivileged social class and carry little credibility to most people. Their fear is well founded as there are many cases of reprisal. This explains why this serious corruption is so well hidden.
Due to the fact that so many powerful and influential groups are involved, it is unlikely that the government will take serious actions against all of them even if they are convinced there are seriously problems. This will result in harming the clout of government and many lawsuits. An easy course of action open to government is to cover up, use privacy to keep people in the dark and hope that the problem will go away.
Government employees are indemnified by their employer, namely the government (or more precisely taxpayers). Legally, it is very difficult to hold them personally accountable for their wrongdoings. Why should they fear?
At the Micro Level
These prerequisites precipitate a structural corruption rarely known to the public. They are translated into tactics child protection workers used against parents when carrying out their duties of "helping" and "developing" families in need. Supported by credible testimonies and evidence of corruption, our MCFD Tactics and MCFD Surveillance pages provide a good analysis at the micro level. These materials will not be reiterated here. Please view these two pages.
Structural corruption in the child protection industry pertains in most English-speaking countries with similar child protection law. The article below titled "Organized Crime Operating in the Child Protection System" written by James Roger Brown (released on June 29, 2004) gives a good overview of the situation in the United States.
The only solution to build a safer future for our children
So far, we make no positive comment on the industry. Are we cynical? Mudslinging critics as biased and using success testified by grateful foster children are tactics frequently used by the industry to confuse the public. Given their financial resources, the industry is fully capable to create showcase success for propaganda purpose. The only party qualified to give reliable comments on the industry is parents who have received "services". not politicians, service providers, bureaucrats, retired judges or academicians.
There are thousands of child protection workers in every regime. Are they all that bad? We do believe that there are good service providers who do their job in good faith. However, their presence is insufficient to rectify corruption in the industry. In the child protection business, whoever betrays the principle of accrual of power and money, others betray him. Service providers have to go with the flow or risk alienation by their peers if they don't. Most of them choose the former. This renders corruption in the industry structural. In view of the lopsided court decisions handed down in the past and the absolute power to remove children, the current system is irreparable. Industry driven reform is a waste of time and money. The only way to stop this corruption is by cutting off the involuntary supply of human inventory to feed the artificially created demand in the industry. This cannot be accomplished without repealing child protection law that authorizes child removal.
Children in foster care are at a greater risk of suicide, the increased risk of suicide is still prevalent after leaving foster care and occurs at a higher rate than the general population. In a small study of twenty-two Texan youths who aged out of the system, 23% had a history of suicide attempts.
Children in foster care have an overall higher mortality rate than children in the general population. A study conducted in Finland among current and former foster children up to age 24 found a higher mortality rate due to substance abuse, accidents, suicide and illness. The deaths due to illness were attributed to an increased incidence of acute and chronic medical conditions and developmental delays among children in foster care.
The late Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer published a report "The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services" stating:
"The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official safety, these children are far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population".
The most disturbing development is the extension of power to "protect" unborn children. Service providers consider this unprecedented. An Italian woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was visiting Britain to attend a training course at Stansted airport in Essex, England. She suffered a panic attack after failing to take medication for her bipolar disorder. British social services obtained a court order in August 2012 for the birth to be enforced by way of caesarean section and her infant seized at birth. The woman was taken to a psychiatric hospital and sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Five weeks later, her daughter was removed from her womb without her consent. This could happen to any mothers whom child protection workers consider a risk to children. This is a serious challenge to human right, safety and freedom.
Ironically, the industry is the largest institutional risk to child safety. Some readers may find this remark implausible. The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) in 1998 reported that children died in foster care six times higher than those in the general public. Children are far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation in foster homes than in the general population. The NCCAN report on "Perpetrators of Maltreatment" provides statistics on the left.
These statistical data refute foster homes is a known safe place, a faulty justification often used by judges who err on the side of caution in making custody decisions in child protection hearings. In their infinite wisdom, they do err, not on the side of caution, but on the side of naive assumption and irresponsibility.
Hover your mouse to pause the slide show and click the photo to access link to the case. Foster children around the globe suffer from dirty home, neglect, sexual abuse and murder.
It does not require a genius to interpret and understand these empirical data. Most foster parents warehouse children to earn a living. It is a lucrative business. Foster children are not their children. Why should they care? Child protection workers seldom challenge parenting skills of foster parents. Complaints from foster children are often ignored. The foregoing are supported the following cases:
The cases above are cited as illustrative examples of atrocities in foster care and are by no means exhaustive of various kinds of abuse in foster care.
Child removal is an inhumane and oppressive act. Just the threat of child removal alone can create unspeakable horror that could cause immense distress to both children and parents. It is as abnormal as incest, as hideous as genocide and as wrong as the residential schools in Canada. State-sponsored child removal amounts to enforced disappearance of persons. It is a systematic attack directed against a unsuspecting civilian population. With knowledge of the attack, financially motivated service providers work in concert to methodically remove children and ruthlessly break bondage with their parents under the pretext of child protection. Tactics calculated to sever parent's tie with children are despicable and of wanton cruelty. It is difficult to get them to understand something when their salary and livelihood depend on not understanding it. With the formidable power society has so wrongly entrusted, they occupy moral high ground, monopolize the industry, suppress criticisms, control demand of their services aggrandize to the maximum that taxpayers could bear.
MCFD removed RCMP Officer's son.Part 2 and Part 3 of the interview are linked herein.
Expansion of the industry has become cancerous. Service providers are advocating raising the age of care limit. The Representative for Children and Youth (RCY) in British Columbia published a report titled "On Their Own" in April 2014 recommending raising the age of care limit from 19 to 25. Enough is never enough. A nanny state will serve the best interests of this parasitic industry. What the RCY should investigate are: why these foster children are removed in the first place? Are the removals justified? Why foster children cannot live independently after they graduate from foster care? Does empirical evidence and statistics support the notion of foster home is a "known safe place"? What are the social costs of state-sponsored removal? Of course, this pseudo watchdog will not explore these issues that could potentially embarrass the industry and refute some fundamental beliefs imperative to the survival of the industry. Research conducted by the industry often suggests that failure to protect children is due to lack of funding. Consequently, more government funding is often recommended. Too much money is given to the wrong hands. A good portion of tax dollars allocated for child protection are wasted in counter productive activities and ended up paying service providers rather than helping families in need.
To finance the lifestyle of service providers, the legal costs and damages of lawsuits resulting torts and wrongful deaths of foster children, the B.C. government is compelled to seek new avenues to raise revenue. While increasing tax will attract public scrutiny and often carries a political price, government resorts to non-tax income such as toll fee on bridges already paid for by taxpayers (a de facto dobule taxation), higher medical service plan premium and transit levy, eco fee, electronics environmental handling fee, to satisfy the insatiable financial demand from service providers of various industries that live on the avail of taxpayers. If you do not have children or your children are now adults and you think problems created by the industry is irrelevant to you, you are wrong. Think about the ever increasing taxes you pay. Given the high crime rate of foster children when they reach adulthood, perhaps they are the one who mugs you on the street or break into your house. Save and exempt service providers, no one can be exempted from being victimized.
Even police officers are not exempted from persecution. A RCMP officer shared her experience with child protection agencies in two Canadian provinces. She is a single mother with her son removed. Being a police officer, she instinctively compared criminal law with child protection law. She did not realize that child protection law is very different from criminal law. Despite what its legislative intent is, child protection law circumvents our charter right protection, removes assumption of innocence, puts the onus of proof on parents, reduces the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt to a belief or perception of need of protection and diminishes the stingy requirements of admissible evidence to hearsay and gossip. It is designed for parents to fail and the child protection agencies to attain absolute power to remove children. Case law is also so lopsided that child protection workers have more power than provincial court judges. Against insurmountable odds in lengthy child protection proceedings, if parents obtain an order to have their children returned to them, child protection workers may continue to hold on their children using various excuses until they have sufficient ground to allege that there is no more bonding between children and their parents. Then this becomes legal reason to apply for continuing (or permanent) custody. If they are successful, removed children are ready for adoption, which is another lucrative business falls in the mandate of most child protection agencies. Our views are elaborated in in "Flaws of CFCSA" if you need more information on child protection law.
Furthermore, to ensure sufficient children in foster care, definitions of child abuse have been expanded to encompass some new arenas:
obesity of children (advocated by Dr. David Ludwig of Children's Hospital in Boston);
In his book titled "Capital in the Twenty-First Century", French economist Thomas Piketty argued that uneven distribution of wealth lacks self corrective mechanism if the rate of return on capital is greater than the rate of economic growth and will lead to economic instability. Professor Piketty proposed a global progressive wealth tax system to help create greater equality and avoid the vast majority of wealth coming under the control of a minority. Similarly, service providers in the industry will continue to take advantage of their privileged positions and maximize their ill-earned income at the expense of taxpayers and destruction of families under the pretext of child protection. Given the public ignorance and apathy on child protection, they will not hesitate to milk taxpayers dry if we let them. This will inevitably open government to corruption and racketeering. This is not only a moral issue on natural justice but also a practical issue of fiscal sustainability. The industry will vigorously fight against any suggestions that will weaken its power or reduce child protection budget. Fair measures that expose their personal assets (such as removal of government indemnification of legal costs and court awarded damages) to lawsuit will be opposed.
State sponsored child removal is a global problem. It is a legalized crime against humanity. Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they are ratified into law. It is a potential source of social unrest and an undue tax burden on every taxpayer. Furthermore, the industry will eventually milk a nation dry if we do not rise to stop racketeering. A people of sheep will beget a government of wolves. Ignorance, apathy, blind faith in government and pseudo science are the foundation of success to the industry. An error does not become truth by reason of artificial propagation, nor does the truth become error because the majority do not see it. Service providers in the industry are indeed brilliant to hijack the noble cause of child protection and devise such a lucrative scheme to rip off taxpayers using oppressive means and get away unnoticed and unpunished for such a long time. We cannot think of any other scheme that is comparable in term of scale and success in concealing its hideous nature and in garnering support from naive and gullible people. The corruption is a disgrace to humanity, an insult to natural justice and a threat to national security as it destroys the backbone of a nation: families. History will one day prove that we are correct.
Child removal authority can be used against any individual or group of people for reason other than child protection. Industry-created atrocities on families in the news footages in our web site could happen on anyone of us. This authority seriously jeopardizes our safety and freedom. Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor. It must be demanded by the oppressed. Ameliorative change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through persistent struggle guided by conscience, wit and wisdom. For the love of our nation, we must rise against such a corrupt industry. To build a safer future for our children, act before your love ones fall prey. History will one day affirm that we are right.
Glossary of Terms used in the industry by services providers and families under scrutiny
Legal terms and jargons evolve in the industry. The glossary on the left is used by service providers while the one on the right is commonly used by oppressed families.