PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-now
Bookmark and Share
PAPA logo
donate button
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. 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. On 31 August 2017, the Court of Appeal for B.C. set aside the orders in the civil proceeding against the Director/Province, set aside the finding that Mr. Strickland committed misfeasance in public office, that the Director and her delegates breached their fiduciary duty to the children, and that the Director and her delegates breached the standard of care in the decisions they made with respect to the children while they were in her care.
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
  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 Children’s 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)

Tracy Watson, Renee Stalker, Olivia Stalker, Shafer Watson, Riley Watson v. County of Santa Clara, William Hoyt, Craig Blank, et al (Judgment handed down on April 4, 2011, San Jose, California, the U.S.A. stemmed from an incident on June 29, 2005)

STIPULATION AND ORDER 313 to Extend Time by One Court Day for Filing Opposition to Defendant City of San Jose's Motion for Summary Judgement or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 11/16/09. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2009)

The following are noteworthy:

  1. This lawsuit stemmed from an incident on June 29, 2005. It takes a few years before the court arrives at a decision. Government always enjoys an edge as it has access to the deep pocket of taxpayers for hire the best lawyers while most civilians lack the financial resources to engage in prolonged legal warfare.
  2. Taxpayers are always an indirect victim when victims of abuse of authority are successful in their lawsuits against government employees because:
    1. Government is often named a defendant.
    2. Government, hence taxpayers, is obliged to indemnify civil servants in lawsuits, pay for the legal expenses and court awarded damages.

    It follows that accountability cannot be established as long as government indemnifies the wrongdoings of civil servants.

  3. In this case, it is the police officers, not "child protection" workers, who retaliated when citizens assert their rights. If the defendant is a "child protection" worker, it is doubtful that the jury will be sympathetic to parents as people have undue respect and trust on this type of bureaucratic police.
  4. In British Columbia, "child protection" workers do NOT need any court order before they can remove children, not even in non-life threatening situation. This gives them power to play god. In the case law Director v. M.P., 2005 BCPC 651, Honorable Judge B.K. Davis (a Vancouver Provincial Court judge) ruled that parents cannot use the following in opposing temporary custody order:

    1. that there is no complaint from a third party;
    2. that the child is not in immediate danger when in care of parents;
    3. that MCFD fails to show that removal is in the best interests of the child.

    Judge Davis further held that "All the Director need do is make out a prima facie case (an extremely low threshold of proof in law) that the child may be in need of protection, and then I can make one of the orders set out above that is appropriate in the circumstances."

    This supports arbitrary child removal.

  5. We are unaware of any successful lawsuit against a "child protection" agency in Canada of wrongful or malicious child removal. If our browsers come against any cases that speak otherwise, please enlighten us.

[This page was added on added on 8 April 2011, last revised on 8 April 2011.]