Lisa and Anthony Demaree went
public warning the undue power of CPS

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-now
Bookmark and Share
PAPA logo
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. 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.
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
Media
  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 Childrens 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)

Lisa and Anthony Demaree child removal, Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A. aired on September 18, 2009

Nightmare of the Demarees began when the parents took nude photos of their young daughters, then ages 1.5, 4 and 5, and developed these photos in a Walmart in Arizona. Without notice to the Demarees, overly zealous Walmart employee took these photos to the local police. Child protective service (CPS) was notified. Their children were removed and put in "protective" state custody for over a month. The judge who heard the case ruled that the photos are not pornographic in nature and returned the children to their parents.

Like most people who live in these so-called "free and democratic" English-speaking nations, Mrs. Lisa Demarees was unaware of the oppressive power of "child protection" agency before her family was scrutinized. She warned the public of how much power the state has and can pull children out of homes at will. Despite she has a master degree in education, she lost her job and is unable to teach. The Demarees are suing the state and Walmart for damages.

The parents subsequently sued the state and Wal-mart for defamation. In these two separate lawsuits, the Demarees say the "slanderous claims" state officials made during the investigation caused them serious economic losses. They also claim to have since suffered "emotional stress, headaches, nightmares, a general feeling of malaise, shock to their nervous system, grief and depression." The state of Arizona was specifically accused of making slanderous remarks against the Demarees at a hearing where 35 of their friends and family members showed up to testify in support of the couple.

The aforesaid situation of parents under the scrutiny a "child protection" agency is classical. Some parents are forced to divorce so that one of them can get their children back. Some committed suicide during or after the state-created trauma. Many end up losing their jobs and their homes. Some even face further persecution when they go public to uncover the corruption in the "child protection" industry (see the 2006 Jessica Laboy case in Florida). There is little merit to believe that removing children from their families is for the purpose of family development and serve the best interests of people.

This family is relatively luckier as their children were removed only for 1 month. Should this happen in British Columbia, Canada, it would have taken a lot longer to get a trial date. Typically, it would take 3 to 4 months before parents can get their first opportunity to argue their case in a Section 35 hearing. Parents are not only fighting against a very lopsided statute but also a very sluggish and inefficient legal process. Unless "child protection" social workers decide to return removed children to their families, which rarely happens, parents must face a minimum separation from their children for at least 4 months in the best case scenario. Statistically, the government stands a 98% of winning the interim custody of removed children. If parents lose the interim custody, it will take close to a year (at times longer if more court time is needed) before the next custody hearing can be scheduled. Special interest groups in the child removal industry have plenty of time and opportunities to milk taxpayers and parents under the pretext of "child protection".

This case proves the following:

  1. the harm of state-sponsored child removal activities on families and children;
  2. children from better educated parents and families of a higher social class are not immune to the scrutiny of "child protection" social workers;
  3. child removal authority is powerful, oppressive, inhumane, barbaric and open to abuse characteristic in totalitarian and tyrannous regimes;
  4. taxpayers are always indirect victims as such hideous activities are costly and will inevitably lead to lawsuits for damages.

To those who do not think that the child removal industry could affect them, think twice. A phone call is all it takes.

Lisa and Anthony Demaree

           

This is one of the few photos released to the media that led to the removal of the Demaree children. This proves our point (Preventive Measure # 15) in our Parent Support page written before this case occurred that taking nude photos of young children will attract unwanted attention.

"Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour."



To view the news footage in another window, please click here.





[This page was added on added on September 25, 2009.]