PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-2014
Bookmark and Share
PAPA logo
notice board blogger icon
New links

Preface

If you think that there is freedom of expression and transparent government in Canada, think twice. Absolute oppressive power has rendered our Constitution completely meaningless.

The e-mail below ordered us to remove all identifiable information of the family involved in this case, alleging publicly disclosure of such information is an offence of various Acts. Once again, this proves beyond doubt that secrecy and fear are essential to maintain public ignorance of the true nature of modern "child protection" and are instrumental to the success of the "child protection" industry.

We do not believe that we have broken any laws in British Columbia. We are not of the opinion that Sgt. Carlos Tettolowski's allegations below would stand in court. We totally disagree with any interference from the authorities to obstruct freedom of expression, which often occurs in totalitarian states. However, we respectfully complied with Sgt. Tettolowski's polite order as a gesture of a good corporate citizen. We would like to share more information with Sgt. Tettolowski and all police officers. Please return to this page in January 2012.

Alleged Insanity of Ms. A of Salmon Arm, British Columbia (May 2011)

(blue text contains the link to the corresponding subject)

Starr-Ella
Starr-Ella, a friend and advocate who assists parents in their quest for justice

Starr-Ella Brunelle, a pro bono advocate, has been actively helping Ms. Alena (Ms. A) Asbjornhus and her partner KN of Salmon Arm, whom the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) has put undue distress since intervention.

Ms. Alena and Kevin met in Calgary, Alberta. She had a child from her previous relationship and had lost custody of her child to her ex spouse. Alberta Children and Youth Services (MCFD's counterpart in Alberta) had been involved due to an allegation of a mental problem called Schizophrenia. The details of her situation are documented in her affidavit dated 2 November 2009 . In 2006, Dr. L. A. Marcus (a psychiatrist in Calgary, Alberta) diagnosed that she is not psychotic and does not have severe mental health problem (see his below). Dr. Gary W. Lea (a clinical psychologist in Kelowna, British Columbia) recommended returning her first removed child Paul under 9 conditions .

When the couple moved to Vernon, British Columbia, Kevin's mother Barbara was concerned why Ms. A lost custody of her child. On June 3, 2009, she called MCFD to seek support after Ms. A was pregnant with her first child with Kevin. On 10 June 2009, Ms. A was required to met a "child protection" worker for the first time. Knowing she was pregnant, the Ministry put a province-wide obliging hospitals to inform the Ministry when Ms. A seeks medical assistance. The alert also prohibited contact between Ms. A and her newborn, not even a chance to hold her baby after birth, and to effect immediate removal. The hospital alert and "child protection" worker outlining the Ministry's concerns are linked for reference.

Like most Canadians who trust their government, the family believed that the Ministry will help at the onset. Ms. A gave consent to the Ministry to obtain information from her file with the Alberta Child Services. She expects her confidentiality will be respected. However, her social worker breached her trust and confidentiality and divulged cherry picked negative information to Barbara and Kevin. This misled Kevin and his parents to agree with the Ministry based on the information provided. Divide and conquer tactic is often used on parents and was initially successful in this case. Ms. A became alienated and was not provided any services other than being torn apart. The MCFD was aware that this family was in need of support. However, instead of offering service, MCFD began to look for a permanent adoptive home for the unborn child without informing the mother. The social worker in charge of their file considers this a groundbreaking precedent to arrange an adoptive home for a unborn child.

Ms. A is a Polish immigrant who came to Canada in January 1989. Despite she lives in Canada over 20 years, she still has language difficulty. The MCFD did not provide her with sufficient translation service during their interaction even though they are aware of this need to ensure accurate communication with her.

After the birth of her child in November 2009, Ms. A was put in a psych ward and drugged on the highest dose of 20 mg Olanzapine (a psychotic drug) when she insisted that she is not insane and will fight for the custody of her child. Administration of this drug is against her will. The drugging began two days after her child was removed at birth, which ensured that she was unable to attend court. In her drugged condition, the medical staff would not allow her out. Therefore, the hearings proceeded ex parte. Ms. A did not have the chance to dispute the Ministry's custody application, let alone giving her testimony. The drug had effectively prevented Ms. A to attend hearings. Inadvertently or not, it deprived her fundamental right of defending herself in a court of law, which is an important element in natural justice.

Ms. A's prenatal doctor disagreed with the Ministry's position and the mental health worker does not believe that she has a mental disorder.

Starr-Ella witnessed continual resistance from the MCFD in uniting this family. She has been put down and told to take care of her own family since her involvement in this case. MCFD considered her a crusader and a dangerous liar. Some time last summer, a social worker paid a home visit after Ms. A was living with Starr-Ella's family. The social worker warned that Ms. A is not allowed to be alone with their children, otherwise they would have to become "more involved" with Starr-Ella's own family. Starr-Ella told this worker that her family does not believe that Ms. A was a danger to their children. If they do, they would not have welcomed her into their home.

When Kevin saw all the evidence of abuse, he was shocked at what the MCFD had done. He changed his position and began to work with Starr-Ella and Ms. A. Kevin had been allowed access of his child until the MCFD became aware that he has changed side. His access was cut off. In the first six months after the removal, Ms. A was allowed only one 30-minute supervised visit every two weeks. She requested more time but the MCFD refused until a judge made an order allowing her one hour per week.

Ms. A was not allowed any support person or advocate and only provided with an interpreter twice during supervised visits. This gave the MCFD a chance to fabricate false information. They also took advantage of Ms. A's deficiency in English. Since third party is seldom allowed during supervised visits, there is no witness to refute fabricated information in court. The phone conversation with their "child protection" worker recorded in the video below show how aggressive she was in prohibiting Starr-Ella to attend supervised visits under the pretext of child safety.

Kevin's mother, Barbara, was the whistle blower who wanted to help with a good intent. Like most Canadians, she trusted that social workers will help. She was dismayed to learn that the only "service" offered, namely removal of her grandchild, harms more than helps. She deeply regrets seeking help from the Ministry. Her testimony on the foregoing is in the video embedded on the top left hand corner of this page.

Using visitation as pawn, Ms. A and Kevin were pressured to consent (dated 2 February 2011) followed by a six-month supervision order. The parents complied to all the terms set forth in the TCO and yet the Ministry refused to return the child. On May 2, 2011, the day that the TCO expired and the child was supposed to be returned to the parents to commence the six-month supervision order (point 2 of the Order), he was re apprehended 25 minutes upon his arrival in the parent's home.

The Ministry advised in no uncertain term that their second unborn child will be removed shortly after birth. This creates tremendous pressure and distress on Ms. A and her family.

When Starr-Ella became involved at the beginning, she truly believed that all the resources would be made available to help Ms. A and MCFD's intervention would have come to an end months ago. She was wrong. In fact, the exact opposite is true. To rectify what the Ministry did to Ms. A, the family has difficulties getting assistance from the Ministry, the MLA, the Premier, the Ombudsman, or the Prime Minister.

20110531 Newton PAPA interview 2

It is eye opening to see how abusive some "child protection" workers are when they deal with their "clients". They are totally different from the charming and helpful image they portray in front of the public and judges. The video on the right contains segments of a 9-minute phone recording with their worker on 24 February 2011 in Salmon Arm, British Columbia. This phone conversation addressed the issue of who are allowed to attend supervised visits. Using access as pawn, their worker plays god. Only "child protection" workers can treat their "clients" like this and still remain in business.

Despite there is a court order allowing Starr-Ella to be a support person, this worker protested her presence during supervised visits. She argued that she has the exclusive authority to determine who may attend. Any person who disagrees with the Ministry's position will face more resistance and scrutiny and have to jump hoops such as criminal check, prior approval, body search, prohibited to speak in their mother tongue ... etc. This is classic retaliatory measure from bureaucrats who repeatedly emphasize that they are protecting your children. Of course, parents are being watched like hawks by visitation workers who take notes and report back to "child protection" workers.

social worker
(hover your mouse over the cartoon)

The family came to Vancouver to await the arrival of their new born and the arrival of unsparing "child protection" worker escorted by the police to execute the removal shortly after.

In the afternoon of 5 June 2011 (Sunday), Ms. A was admitted to the Royal Columbian Hospital, New Westminster. Unlike most deliveries, the hospital did not allow any family members in the delivery room. In the absence of family support, Ms. A gave birth to her second child Sabina by way of a C-section. At about 6 p.m., after-hour social worker assisted by the New Westminster police seized the baby right after birth. None of the family member, including the father and the grandparents, who were waiting outside the delivery room was allowed to see the baby. The only memory left to the family is a photo taken by a nurse with Kevin's cell phone.

As expected, the Ministry had instructed the hospital to follow strict procedures set forth to ensure smooth removal. Subsequent to a document disclosure request, the hospital provided the Ministry's Vernon Office alert and patient record (see attachment below). The following are noteworthy:

  1. The alert states the reason for the family of coming to Vancouver is to evade the baby's removal. The family knows that there is no way to evade apprehension as long as they are in Canada. They chose to come to Vancouver for a different reason. This is within their right to make this choice.

  2. Madga is described as a liar with mental disorder more than once in the alert and her medical record. Such derogatory information is asserted rather than proven. Be mindful that she has two professional assessments confirming the contrary. Divulging such information will certainly cause the hospital staff treating the family very differently as most Canadians trust the Ministry and naively accept their allegations as truth.

  3. The initial instructions in the alert were crossed out and replaced by a stricter order of no contact with baby at all. This is a typical heavy-handed tactic often used on oppressed parents.

  4. Contrary to the disturbing image of a psychotic liar the Ministry wants to portray, the hospital staff remarked on on 7 June 2011 that Megda was cheerful, talkative with no special problems after observing her for a few days.

  5. The hospital staff recorded on 7 June 2011 (third column from the left) that Megda kept asking questions about her baby who had already been removed from the hospital by the Ministry. Would a psychotic uncaring mother do that?

After suffering this ministry-created trauma, the family has to fight a lengthy uphill legal battle to regain custody of their children. In view of the fact that the family has gone public, full scale retaliation is expected. This inhumane oppression and atrocity happened on the best place to live on earth: British Columbia.

On 21 June 2011, the parents received a letter from David Ross, MCFD lawyer. This letter addressed the following issues:

  1. Access Arrangement

    This suggested that parents have not been given access to their infant since birth. This is inhumane and unreasonable.

  2. Excuse to Undermine Dr. Lea's Assessment

    Parents' choice not to give birth in Vernon is misconstrued as absconding the authority and putting the life of their newborn at risk. In view of the persecution and the intent to remove at birth, the family is under duress. Ministry-created distress is indeed putting the life of the unborn at risk. Now, the parents' decision to give birth outside Vernon is conveniently used as excuse to undermine the child return recommendation in Dr. Lea's assessment. Dr. Lea's recommendation was made on 20 January 2011. The Ministry has been given a copy of his assessment but fails to act according to the recommendation without giving a reason. This supports the belief of a wait and fish for fault finding tactic as an excuse to lengthen child holding and a pretext for further MCFD involvement.

  3. Breast Milk Feeding

    Few people dispute that breast milk is the best baby food. The Ministry can only feed the removed infant formula milk while the mother is trying in vain to provide breast milk to her newborn. Who is serving the best interests of the child?

  4. Placement to the Grandparents

    The grandparents are being portrayed as complicit in assisting the parents to abscond the authority and therefore unfit to be guardians. It appears that those who disagree with the position of MCFD or refuse to assist in MCFD's plot are often earmarked as unfit guardians. Sticking together with their family in a crisis of this nature and magnitude is a show of love, compassion and family bond, not an inability to make sensible judgment. Be mindful that preserving kinship ties and a child's attachment to the extended family is a guiding principle in Section 2 of CFCSA.

Supporting Documents

Supporting documents of this case were removed per e-mail order from Sgt. Carlos Tettolowski of the Salmon Arm RCMP Detachment sent on 8 November 2011.


This case suggests the following:

  1. Whistle blowers with a good intent often regret reporting to the Ministry after they witness how harmful their actions are on family and their loved ones. On the other hand, malicious whistle blowers enjoy seeing parents victimized under the pretext of "child protection".

  2. There is an alert system in place obliging all hospitals and health care facilities to notify MCFD on the admission of parents labeled as child protection risk.

  3. In any contract with MCFD (such as a supervision order), the terms are only binding on parents, not on the Ministry. There is no guarantee that children will be returned upon compliance of supervision order terms even when the return intent is stated in an order. To prolong their involvement, many "child protection" workers shift to new concerns when parents satisfactory complete the terms set forth in supervision order. Even court orders have little bearing on the actions of overly empowered "child protection" workers who have the statutory power to re-remove children with or without fresh evidence.

  4. When a child is involved in an Income Assistance (welfare) application, MCFD will be notified. Lack of resources to care for a child is a "child protection" concern. MCFD often helps by removing the child to be put in foster care. For the ease of action, some MCFD and Income Assistance offices locate side by side.

  5. MCFD does not appear to have "child protection" concern on the father Kevin or the grand parents. Guiding principles 2 (e) of CFCSA stipulates that kinship ties and a child's attachment to the extended family should be preserved if possible. Why the first child removed in 2009 is placed in foster home?

  6. Psychiatric and psychological assessments are insufficient to prove parent's sanity and to change the Ministry's position, while assessments confirming mental disorder will most certainly lead to removal and successful custody order from court.

  7. Parents and children are powerless against the formidable "child protection" agency who has the power, resources and motivation to pursue families all across Canada.

  8. CFCSA hearings may proceed ex parte despite whether or not parents have a legitimate reason of unable to attend. We have come across cases in which parents are not even properly served with legal documents relating to CFCSA hearings. It provides no recourse to parents to set aside the order made.

  9. Threat of removal at birth is often made on pregnant mothers who are labeled as a risk to child safety, creating undue stress that could jeopardize the unborn child. Another example is the Baynes on 10 February 2011 in Surrey, British Columbia.

  10. Advocates and supporters of parents run the risk of being scrutinized and are often tainted as crusader, uncooperative, biased and radical who act without the full set of information and the knowledge of social work. Another example of retaliation on sympathetic friends is the Jessica Laboy (Florida 2006) case in which the "child protective service" (CPS) removed the children of her supportive friends. The WPDF 25 Florida TV news footage is embedded on the left.

  11. Contrary to some naive thinking, moving to another city or province and delivery on a non-business day cannot avoid MCFD. There are after-hour social workers working hard around the clock 365 days a year to serve the "child protection" industry. Perhaps the only certain way to preserve tie and custody of a unborn child when scrutinized is to leave this free and democratic country whose government ardently talks about human rights and natural justice.

  12. Psychotropic drugs have been used in MCFD related cases.

  13. Inadvertently or not, complaint and remedial processes wear and tear parents. They seldom serve their intended purposes when a complaint is directed against the MCFD.

  14. This case bears remarkable resemblance of the political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Incidentally, psychiatric diagnoses such as sluggish schizophrenia of political dissidents in the USSR were used for political purposes. In English speaking nations where "child protection" is an interest of government, mental disorder is a powerful, convenient and convincing excuse to remove children from their birth parents. Canadians are brought up to obey and trust their government. Many are gullible to government allegations and support blindly with passion. Few question whether child protection allegations are authentic and supported by good evidence. While sane dissidents in the Soviet Union were locked up for political reasons, alleged insane parents lost their children to support the "child protection" industry which provides job security and business opportunities to special interests. In our view, this is hypocritical, more hideous and despicable. The video on the right further discusses the corruption of the industry in America, which is also applicable in Canada and other English-speaking nations.

  15. Many Canadians go to their government for help. This demand of services gives rise to a nanny state and allows service providers to aggrandize. Politicians raise taxes to feed the ever growing bureaucracy and service providers. Perhaps we can learn patriotism from the late American President John F. Kennedy who said the following in his Inaugural address on 20 January 1961:

    "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."




[This page was added on 4 June 2011, last revised on 3 January 2012.]