Some tips to evade surveillance

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-now
Bookmark and Share
PAPA logo
donate button
notice board blogger icon
New links

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. 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. On 31 August 2017, the Court of Appeal for B.C. set aside the orders in the civil proceeding against the Director/Province, set aside the finding that Mr. Strickland committed misfeasance in public office, that the Director and her delegates breached their fiduciary duty to the children, and that the Director and her delegates breached the standard of care in the decisions they made with respect to the children while they were in her care.
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.
parents must read
  1. MCFD Tactics
  2. MCFD Surveillance
  3. MCFD found liable for misfeasance
  4. Psychotherapy
  5. Flaws of CFCSA
  6. Absolute Power and Corruption
  7. Myths & Reality
  8. On-line Service Application
  1. MCFD found liable for misfeasance
  2. MCFD Tactics
  3. MCFD Surveillance
  4. MCFD & The First Nation
  5. Unreported Deaths of Albertan Foster Children
  6. Child Removal and Human Organ Harvesting
  7. Empirical and Statistical Data
  8. Child Removal Cases
  9. Video Archives
contact us
most popular
  1. MCFD found liable for misfeasance
  2. MCFD & The First Nation
  3. The Child Protection Industry
  4. Unreported Deaths of Albertan Foster Children
  5. Our Comment on "When Talk Trumped Service"
  6. "The problem with Children’s Aid Societies" by Barbara Kay for National Post
  7. Powerful As God (2011 documentary)
  8. CPS Quotas: How Child Protective Services is Incentivized To Take Children video
  9. Documentary on the Child Protection Industry
  10. "The Child Abuse Laws Which Could Destroy Your Reputation"
  11. 3-part WLKY Target 32 Investigates (Kentucky, U.S.A.):
    1. "CPS Makes Shocking Allegations at 2 Moms Part 1 of 3"
    2. "CPS Does About Face, Accuses Parents Of Abuse Part 2 of 3"
    3. "CPS Makes More Disturbing Allegations Against Parents Part 3 of 3"
  12. "Child Protective System WLKY Louisville Part 1"; and
    "Child Protective System WLKY Louisville Part 2"
  13. Documentary on the Ministry of Children and Family Development Part 1 and Part 2
  14. "The Negative Effects of Foster Care on Removed Children" (Wikipedia)
  15. "Mass CPS corruption Part 2"
  16. "Deconstructing America Part 1" "Deconstructing America Part 2"
  17. "Death of a foster child Dontel Jeffers, Dorchester, Massachusetts, U.S.A. (Part 1)" "(Part 2)" ABC News
  18. U.S. Republican Senator Nancy Schaefer spoke on "child protective service" (CPS) corruption video
  19. "Children's Aid Society workers should be reined in" National Post
  20. Wrongful Removal of Christina Harrison's Baby
  21. Jessica Laboy case
  22. Removal of the 13 Gates Children in Texas, U.S.A.
  23. "Married to the State: How government colonizes the family"
    by Professor Stephen Baskerville (September 2009)
Table of Contents

MCFD Mounted Surveillance

  1. What is Surveillance?
  2. Real or Paranoid?
  3. Evidence Suggesting Surveillance
  4. Government Modus Operandi
  5. MCFD's Hired Guns
  6. An Anecdote on Comments from Browsers and A Debate With A Service Provider in the Cyberspace
  7. Comments from Browsers
  8. Debate With A Service Provider in the Cyberspace
  9. Why Denying Surveillance?
  10. The Objective of Surveillance
  11. MCFD’s Advantages
  12. Common Surveillance and Countermeasures
  13. MCFD Information Systems
  14. Remarks
  15. Popular Culture
  16. References

Surveillance and Countermeasures

Some tactics to counter physical surveillance tactics. First and foremost: be vigilant.

MCFD mounted surveillance is summarized below and characterized by:

  • social workers in charge of a file seldom get involved in surveillance because parents recognize them
  • generally, MCFD surveillance operatives are men but sometimes women are used as well
  • they wear plainclothes and at times work on teams
  • they do not carry weapon as their muscle, the police, is at their disposal and is just a phone call away
  • they do work around the clock and on statutory holidays
  • they are active on special events like Christmas Eve, Mother's Day, birthday of target’s children

Counter surveillance is the practice of avoiding surveillance or making surveillance difficult. Sometimes, a target may want to show that he knows that he is under surveillance just to get vermin off his back. This tactic will not deter MCFD-mounted surveillance. Your privacy is the last thing MCFD would respect. Their principle is to intimidate, to provoke, to belittle, to demonstrate power and to find faults.

There are countermeasures parents could adopt to minimize or evade surveillance. Our web site is monitored by MCFD. In order not to expose countermeasure information to MCFD, please contact us if you need assistance in this area.

Surveillance Method

Their Objectives

Indicative Sign(s) of Presence

monitoring target and/or their children by placing plainclothes secret agent in vehicle (stakeout mission)
  • to find excuses (such as breach of unauthorized contact with children) to justify a removal or more intrusive measures
  • to create fear to subjugate parents
Some anti-surveillance techniques when followed by car.
Some high tech anti-surveillance techniques.

unmarked vehicle with person taking notes at times, parked for a long period of time near target’s residence and children’s school with a clear view of traffic and access of home

foot stalking or tailing targets by public transportation stranger(s) roaming around target’s residence, taking notes at times, making diversion gestures (such as checking house number pretending to find someone) when observed

vehicular stalking of target

unmarked vehicle following target, making aggressive pursuit if target is about to be lost due to traffic conditions

monitoring communications such as phone conversations, e-mails, video conferencing, interception of postal mail (whether MCFD uses this method regularly is unconfirmed, but we assume some social workers do in the worst case scenario)

Subsequently, we received reliable information from parents that confirm interception of e-mails (including attachments) and phone calls (including cell phone) when there is no on-going criminal investigation

  • collect information to catch a breach of supervision terms and to justify their next action
  • monitor the emotion, sentiment of parents
  • gather intelligence of what parents plan to do



social workers know information that has only been discussed over phone or e-mails

use hostile or unsuspecting family members, including the target’s own children, to spy for information

  • gather information to destroy healthy parental relationship as child adhesion to parent is an obstacle to removal and adoption
  • tarnish targets under scrutiny as bad parents
  • social workers know information that has only been discussed with family members and children
  • target’s children are withdrawn, appear confused, nervous, doubtful, not open to parents

use neighbors to monitor target

  • cheap methods with the added benefit of destroying parent’s reputation in their community
  • given the kangaroo nature of “child protection” court, social workers can misconstrue information from unsuspecting neighbors to their liking or using grudges of neighbors to their advantage
  • neighbors are overly observant and vigilant
  • neighbors ask unusual questions, show abnormal interest in target’s affairs and have uneasy facial expression

use compelled counseling to extract information (there is no privileged information and confidentiality protection as MCFD paid counselors are obliged to open the entire client file to social workers, after all, counselors seldom bite the hands that feed them)

force or induce target to admit incriminating statement in this disguised form of interrogation and use information extracted during counseling in court to justify legal action (be mindful that most supervision orders contain a term of completing counseling to the satisfaction of counselor and social worker, many parents are forced to admit whatever wrongdoing imposed on them for the purpose of getting their children back after completion of counseling)

  • counselor pays undue attention to your past (like asking you to repeat what caused MCFD intervention again and again)
  • counselor is more interested in extracting information than in offering professional help

use supervised visit when seeing removed children to spy for information (be mindful supervised visit workers take notes during the entire visit, some parents are searched before and after the visit)

fabricate or misconstrue information to incriminate parents or to attack their parenting skills (most common scheme is accusing parents to be the cause when children cry at separation, lack of parenting skill to deal with situation when children are traumatized)

  • social workers use information from supervised visits in court or when interacting with parents
  • supervised visit workers (who are not always MCFD employees, they could be employees of organizations, such as family resource centers, closely related to MCFD) are making negative remarks on parents

To give a real example, the photo on the right was taken during a supervised visit in 2006. The fine Asian gentleman snoozing on the left with a writing pad on his lap was an interpreter hired by MCFD. We have no intention to embarrass him by showing his face. Unfortunately, if we blurred his face, our browsers could not see that he was snoozing on the job.

Despite that he was snoozing for over 30 minutes and he has limited understanding of Cantonese (a Chinese dialect the parent speaks with children), derogatory report from the supervised visit worker (who is a Caucasian woman not shown in this photo) was made against the parents. Unsurprisingly to those who had received interventions from MCFD, this report containing fabricated allegations was later used by social worker in court to justify MCFD’s position. Court, of course, considered these reports credible as they were made by various “impartial”, "independent" and “respectable” social workers who work so “genuinely” to "protect children".

(back to MCFD Surveillance main page)

[This page was created on 13 March 2010, last revised on 21 October 2016.]