Surveillance and Countermeasures

Surveillance and Countermeasures

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.]

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association © 2007

Surveillance and Countermeasures