Keys to Success of the Child Protection Industry

The following factors are vital to the success of the child protection industry:

1. Absolute Authority to Remove Children

   Statutory authority to remove children from their parents based on bureaucratic opinion is of paramount importance to the industry. Section 30 of the Child Family and Community Service Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 46 (CFCSA) grants precisely such power to child protection workers of MCFD, rendering them the most powerful bureaucrats in the entire government. They fear no personal repercussion of making wrong removal decisions and are either immune from legal actions or indemnified by their employer for all their actions taken in the course of exercising their child removal authority. For more information, please browse "Flaws of CFCSA" and "MCFD's Absolute Power".



2. Government Funding

   Funding from both provincial and federal governments on child removal and subsequent activities (such lawsuits against parents, foster care and adoption) is an enticing financial incentive to many service providers in the industry who prey on tax dollars allocated to help families in need.

   

   Child protection is primarily a provincial government mandate. However, federal government also provides various financial subsidies to provincial governments and service providers to remove children from their parents. These subsidies are de facto tax clawback for provincial governments and at times lead to jurisdictional funding dispute (see Jordan's Principle: A Child-First Approach Fact Sheet).

   The MCFD budget changes of 2011/12 to 2012/13 indicates recoveries from federal governments and other sources. Recoveries from the federal government are for child protection services, children in care, and youth justice services and from other ministries, other provinces, organizations, and individuals for contributions to service delivery, repayable benefits, overpayments, and costs arising from third party settlements. (Source: MCFD Budget 2004/05 page 55).

   It is noteworthy to remark on the recovery of costs arising from third party settlements, which could include court-awarded damages of wrongful deaths of foster children while in care. This suggests the atrocities created by state-sponsored child removal on children and the financial burden on taxpayers.

   The federal government also provides a lesser-known Children's Special Allowances (CSA) which are tax-free monthly federal payments 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 (as governed by the Children’s Special Allowances Act (1992, c. 48, Sch.). CSA is the child tax benefit equivalent to biological parents and a financial incentive for provincial "child protection" agencies to remove children from their parents and keep them in government sponsored foster/group homes as long as possible.

   For more information on government financial incentives to service providers in the child protection industry, please browse "Financial Incentives to Special Interests and Burden on Taxpayers".




3. Ruses used by politicians to dodge embarrassing questions: can't comment on individual cases to protect confidentiality of children

   A Subservient Populace
   
   A subservient society fostered by:
   1. blind faith in government
      The 2012 American movie
      "Compliance" inspired by
      a true prank call scam
      in a McDonald Restaurant
      in Mount Washington,
      Kentucky suggests
      how gullible North
      Americans are to
      government. ,
   2. fear of retaliation,
   3. apathy and ignorance on social issues,
   serves to minimize public resistance and maximize the financial benefits of service providers in the industry. Like glamorizing residential schools in the dark era, MCFD launches propaganda (of course on taxpayer's expense) to mislead and garner support from the public.

   To keep society guessing in the dark, legal obstacles are instituted to prohibit publishing anything that would reasonably be likely to disclose to members of the public the identity of the child or party. Parental consent does not lift such ban per se. Of course, this is done under the pretext of protecting the privacy of children. Section 3 (6) of the Provincial Court Act in B.C. and Alberta's provincial legislation provi de precisely this power to facilitate cover up of wrongdoings and abuse of power. It is also a means to outlaw and punish those who dare to unveil injustice and atrocities created by the child protection industry.

   The case of Edmonton mother Jamie Sullivan is a good example to illustrate how publication ban of identifiable information helps to protect the child protection agency in question. The helpless mother went public after her 4-month old infant Delonna Sullivan died in care after 6 days in care on 11 April 2011. Alberta law prohibits naming of children and guardians in child protection cases, she risked breaking the law in her endeavor to seek justice. Her identity was made known to the public after an Alberta Court of Queen's Bench judge lifted a publication ban on 13 October 2011. It is obvious in many cases whose interests are being protected by publication ban law.

Replacing Residential Schools with Child Protection: A Meaningless Gesture of reconciliation

Since open discrimination and oppression against a minority group become socially unacceptable and outlawed, the industry shrewdly modified its strategy to cope with the changing situation. They realize that as long as government retains the statutory authority to remove children from their families, they can still maintain their lucrative businesses by sugar coating the cause. Once they occupy the moral high ground, they expand the market (the "protective" coverage as they would like people to believe) to all ethnic groups. Instead of dumping Native children in residential schools, now children forcibly seized from their families under the pretext of "child protection" are placed in foster homes or group homes or at times hotels where there is no parental care and love. Removed children suffer from trauma ranging from neglect to sexually abuse and murder in foster homes. Moreover, since there is no parental guidance and discipline, foster/group homes are melting pots for children to learn bad habits (including drugs addiction) from one another. As long as the number of children removed is below the threshold that will lead to social unrest, the position of special interests is secured. State-sponsored "child protection" parallels the worst oppression in Canadian history and has grown into a multi billion dollar industry nationwide and worldwide.