PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

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

Hover your mouse to pause the slide show and to view cartoon description.
Hover your mouse to pause the slide show and to view photo description.

Six-Week Old Dani Jean Died In Alberta Foster Home on 3 May 2013

Nothing is new under the sun in child protection service (CPS) created atrocities. Dani Isabella Jean was only three weeks old when she was apprehended by CPS in Alberta. According to the Child and Youth Advocate report, she was removed “due to concerns regarding possible risk of abuse.” and was placed with an experienced foster family. Her biological parents, Kuna Bianca Sauve and Paul Jean, were allowed supervised visits.

Three weeks later, on 3 May 2013, Dani was brought into hospital by her foster parents. By the time Sauve and Jean arrived, the little girl was dead. Sauve and Jean were told by the medical examiner that the death was caused by sudden infant death syndrome. They later learned from the Child and Youth Advocate that Dani stopped breathing while she was sleeping in her foster parents’ bed.

While they grieved their deceased daughter, the parents accused the Alberta government of providing little information surrounding the death of their daughter.

Death of foster children is not restricted to infants and young children. Teenagers receiving services died as well. In a six week period in October and November 2014, three children in government care have died. As usual, the government released little information surrounding these victims but listed the dates of death and age of the deceased.

  • November 4, 2014 – A 17-year-old male receiving services
  • October 16, 2014 – A 17-year-old female receiving services
  • October 15, 2014 – An eight-month-old male receiving services

Dani died on 3 May 2013. One may wonder why her parents do not go public until the end of December 2014, more than 19 months later. This is because they were banned to publicly name their child until Bill 11 lifting automatic publication ban on children who died in provincial care was approved in July 2014. Deceased foster children can now be identified with the consent of their parents. Oppressive child protection laws safeguard service providers in every aspect under the pretext of privacy. 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. Under-reporting deaths of foster children is like not reporting a murder when a cop finds a dead body. It is a clear sign of corruption and an obstruction of justice aiming to protect those who should be held responsible for causing deaths directly and indirectly.

Lifting publication ban is a damage control measure calculated to placate public outcry and to divert public attention from staying focus on the under reporting issue. Various levels of publication restrictions in each province are illustrated as follows:

Victoria Whitehorse Edmonton Yellowknife Regina Winnipeg Iqaluit Toronto Ottawa Quebec Fredericton Charlottetown Halifax St. John's Northwest Territories Saskatchewan Newfoundland and Labrador New Brunswick Victoria Yukon can be published if information comes from family or other sources Whitehorse may publish and be identified with the consent of parents Edmonton Regina Yellowknife Nunavut Winnipeg Manitoba Ontario Iqaluit Ottawa Quebec Toronto Quebec City Fredericton Charlottetown Nova Scotia Halifax Prince Edward Island St. John's A clickable map of Canada exhibiting its ten provinces and three territories, and their capitals.

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.

(child protection Ministry/agency)7
Ban Level1 Rate
 %age  Age of
Child Protection Statute(s)
British Columbia
Ministry of Children and Family Development
can be published if information comes from family or other sources 10.1 0.01% 19 Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA)
Ministry of Human Services
may publish and be identified with the consent of parents 10.6 0.01% 18 Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act (CYFEA)
Drug-endangered Children Act
Protection of Sexually Exploited Children Act
Ministry of Social Services
can be published if information comes from family 21.7 0.02% 16 Child and Family Services Act
Emergency Protection for Victims of Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation Act
Department of Family Services
can be published if information comes from family 24.4 0.02% 18 Child and Family Services Act
The Child and Family Services Authorities Act
53 children's aid societies (CAS) under the
Ministry of Attorney General
no publish restriction 6.4 0.006% 16 Child and Family Services Act
Children's Law Reform Act
Director of Youth Protection
illegal to publish
but not enforced
7.8 0.007% 18 Youth Protection Act
New Brunswick
Department of Social Development
illegal to publish 9 0.009% 16 Family Services Act
Nova Scotia4
Department of Social Development
illegal to publish 8.8 0.008% 16 Children and Family Services Act
Prince Edward Island
Department of Community Services and Seniors
can be published 5.3 0.005% 16 Child Protection Act
Newfoundland & Labrador
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services
can be published if information comes from family or other sources 7.5 0.007% 16 Children and Youth Care and Protection Act (replaced the Child Youth and Family Services Act)
Department of Health and Social Services
24.7 0.024% 19 Children’s Act
Child and Family Services Act
Northwest Territories
Department of Child and Family Services
30.8 0.031% 16 Child and Families Services Act
Department of Family Services
15.3  0.015%  16 Child and Families Services Act
1   Information extracted from "Restrictive law silences grieving parents" The Edmonton Journal, published on 28 November 2013
2   Rate per 1,000 children in care (Source of Data: "Foster care in Canada")
3   Children with disabilities are eligible for protective services until age 19.
4   Provinces in red have a provincial child abuse registry.
5   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.
6   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 Québec), provides information and advice to centres and over 8,000 youth protection workers in the province.
7   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.

Lessons Learned From This Case

cash cow
  1. Child protection workers often justify removal due to concerns regarding possible risk of child abuse and there is no other less intrusive means adequate to protect them. Courts accept this seemingly reasonable excuse in preliminary hearings such as a CFCSA Section 35 hearing in British Columbia and often grant interim custody to child protection agencies. This guarantees CPS involvement for a long period of time. Allowing such vague and hollow excuse to remove children puts all parents at risk of losing custody of their children for an extended period of time. Parents do not need to have done something wrong. There is always a possible risk of abuse. As long as these god-like creatures allege possible risk of abuse, they are justified to remove children in a court of law. This amounts to arbitrary removal.

  2. Native families are the prime targets for child protection agencies in Canada. They are like a cash cow because the federal government of Canada subsidizes removal of Native children on a per head basis. They become a provincial tool to seek federal transfer payments. This partially explains why Aboriginal children constitute an exceptionally high per capita removal ratio compared with other ethnic groups and why child protection agencies only keep statistics on Native and non-Native removed children.

    Another financial incentive offered by the federal government is the Children's Special Allowances. CSA is a tax-free monthly federal payment made to agencies, institutions and foster parents who are responsible for the care and education of children under 18 who physically reside in Canada and who are not in the care of their parents. CSA is the child tax benefit (CTB) equivalent available to foster parents warehousing children of all ethnic groups. Once a child is removed, the federal government will cease CTB payment to biological parents and starts paying CSA to foster parents.

  3. 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.

  4. Whenever atrocities occur in foster homes, government uses similar damage control ruse. First, officials cannot comment on individual cases citing privacy in child protection law. They provide very limited and, at times, misleading and incorrect information to parents surrounding the death of their removed children. Then their pseudo watchdog called Representative of Children and Youth or the like investigates the death and comes forth with recommendations often include lack of funding or casework overload as causes of the atrocities. Despite its critical appearance, this official child advocate beats the same drum with service providers in the child protection industry that a larger budget is imperative to protect children while the industry, ironically, is the largest institutional risk to child safety.

  5. Perpetrators directly or indirectly causing foster child deaths are seldom named or held accountable.

  6. In their infinite wisdom, most judges allege that foster homes are known safe places. They err on the side of caution and make custody order in favor of child protection agencies. This case adds to the mountain of evidence refuting this irresponsible and unfounded assumption.

  7. Unexplained death in foster homes is only one of the atrocities removed children face. Most of them are traumatized when forcibly removed from their parents. Some are sexually abused, for example the raping underage foster child case of Howard Smith (Foster Father) of Scarborough uncovered in 2013.

  8. Most critics of CPS believe that flaws resulting in death of foster children are insufficient funding, inadequate training of social workers and case overloads. Failing Our Children by Margo Goodhand published on 12 June 2009 supports the foregoing. They fail to see the root problem is the oppressive and inhumane nature of state-sponsored child removal. Under the pretext of child protection, the industry is controlled by financially motivated service providers who remove children for job security and business opportunities. In all child protection hearings and mediations, parents and their supporters are the only parties who go there without getting paid. Too much power and money have been given to the wrong hands.

  9. If you think that this is an isolated incident, the following deaths in foster care may change your view:

    These are just the tip of an iceberg. Of course, there are many more foster child deaths around the world where governments have the absolute power to remove children from their families.

  10. As long as government retains the power to remove children at will, Dani Isabella Jean is not the first removed child who died in foster home and certainly will not be the last. Mark our words.


[This page was conceptualized on 11 February 2015, added on 11 February 2015, last revised on 11 February 2015.]