Corruption in the child protection industry: retaliation on those who disagree, unveil wrongdoings and those who get their children back in court

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

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

MCFD's Absolute Power

Most Canadians do not believe that MCFD has absolute power to remove children and to control parental access of removed children. Bureaucrats and politicians often allege that removal decisions are not made lightly. Good evidence and due process of law are present to ensure fairness and accuracy in their decision making process. Above all, there is sufficient check and balance in an independent judiciary and court has the final say, not MCFD. To some people, absolute power, if MCFD does have it, is duly exercised and needed to protect children.

Let's examine the foregoing proposition under the following headings:

  1. Absolute statutory authority under CFCSA

    Section 30 of CFCSA grants MCFD directors ("child protection" workers for all intensive purposes in practice) the power to remove children without a court order if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the child needs protection. Police is obliged to accompany and assist "child protection" workers in exercising this authority and has no discretion whatsoever.

    MCFD needs not to give any reason at the time of removal. Court will not hear parent's presentation until at least 3 to 4 months later. MCFD could use various delaying tactics to drag the case for years (such as the Baynes) without hearing. After all, court almost always rules in favor of the Ministry (in Section 35 hearings, statistics between 1999 to 2001 indicates that MCFD stands a 98% chance in winning, the remaining 2% is a return order under supervision, no parent got their kids back unconditionally). CFCSA allows the Ministry to circumvent due process of law, our charter right protection and the requirement of good evidence. For more information, please browse "Flaws of CFCSA".

  2. Lopsided CFCSA case law

    In paragraph [14] of "Director v. M.P., 2005 BCPC 651" Docket: 2005-19226, Registry: Vancouver, temporary custody order was made in favor of director when:

    1. there is no third party complaint;
    2. the director needs not to show that the child is in immediate danger; or
    3. the removal is in the best interests of the child.

    This supports arbitrary removal and could be relied upon by the Ministry in all future hearings.

    Furthermore, despite numerous atrocities in foster homes, judges in their infinite wisdom still consider foster home a known safe environment and often err of the side of caution and place removed children there. As evident in paragraph [14] of "British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services) v. G.(R.), 2001 BCPC 32" (Docket: 92-3735, Registry: Vancouver), the Honorable Judge Jane Auxier took exactly this position.

  3. Power to re-remove at will

    MCFD could re-remove children with or without fresh evidence. We have come across many cases in which children were re-removed after court ordered them returned to parents. The shortest one we have seen is 15 minutes.

  4. Power to control access, sever ties and create legal ground to adopt

    "New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. L. (M.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 534" (Docket: 26321, Registry: The Supreme Court of Canada) held that parents will lose access of their children after they are relieved of their obligations toward their children. Despite how lower court rules, MCFD could rely on this Supreme Court of Canada decision, hold on to the children and cut the emotional, psychological and physical ties (as they have absolute control of access) and adopt the children eventually.

    "Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M. (C.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165" affirms the legal validity of the aforesaid scheme. It is indeed law in Canada. The case synopsis is as follows:

    In 1992, parent obtained a provincial court order in Ontario obliging the Children's Aid Society (CAS) to return removed child, CAS obtained a stay of the order for return from the Court of Appeal pending appeal and a motion for the introduction of fresh evidence, the order for the return of the child to the mother was set aside and ordered that the child be made a Crown ward, without access, for the purposes of adoption, partly due to the new evidence (introduced by CAS) of the consistent and repeated assertions of the child that she regarded her foster family as her real family, that she did not want to see her birth mother, this case suggests the following:

    1. "child protection" workers do not need to return children even if there is a provincial court order of return, apply for a stay of order and appeal are common legal tactics, hence rendering their power exceeding that of provincial court judges;
    2. "child protection" statute and legal process are hopelessly lopsided against parents;
    3. removed children are motivated to stay in foster care (often by way of the offer of money, vacation trips and toys) and to alienate their birth parents as the child's negative emotional, psychological and physical reactions are legal grounds (established by this case) of permanent removal

  5. Resistance of intervention is ground for removal

    Resistance of MCFD intervention or "support" is considered uncooperative and is ground of child removal. In paragraph [29] of "K.A.K. v. British Columbia, 2011 BCSC 1391" File No.: VI05-2992, Registry: The Supreme Court of B.C., Victoria, limited parenting abilities, poor judgment and resistance to Ministry intervention or support are considered risk factors.

    Furthermore, MCFD intervention and "support" may and often call for removal. In Derek Hoare's case, MCFD offered a "voluntary" service agreement that calls for removal of his 9-Year old autistic girl. When Mr. Hoare refused to sign this agreement, his child was removed immediately from school. It is like pointing a gun to one's head and force to accept "services".

If this is not absolute power, what is?

Abuse of Child Removal Power

CPS retaliates when grandparent criticized them of wrongdoing ...

Some people may say so what even if MCFD has absolute power? If such power is used properly to protect children, there is nothing wrong to grant such power.

Absolute power will indeed do little harm if it is not abused. However, our government has track record of abusing such power. The Residential Schools at the grand scale and the numerous cases documented in our web site and others globally proves beyond reasonable doubt that such power has been and still is being abused for financial and job security reasons. Only fools will trust that child removal authority is not abused.

Absolute power is seldom called for in child protection. In extreme situations, there are other statutes that give authorities sufficient power to separate abusive parents and their vulnerable children. This formidable child removal power is often used for non-child protection purposes and is most notably abused by bureaucrats for budgetary and retaliatory reasons. Estranged spouses, hostile in-laws, malicious parties and at times older children are also frequent abusers of this authority. Many people would find "child protection" workers abusing their power that society entrusted to protect children unthinkable. The video embedded on the left proved that they do retaliate on those who criticize their wrongdoings, unveil their abuse of power and corruption.

Fear, secrecy, ignorance and blind faith in government are their keys to success. If you remain unconvinced, please watch the following news footages and cases:

  1. the Bayne's case (2007 to 2011 British Columbia)
  2. Jessica Laboy case (2006 Florida)
  3. cases identified by WLKY 32 Investigates in Kentucky


CFCSA next
Downfall of Paper Tigers: Oppressive power that harms the interest of people will eventually fall and meet its long overdue well-deserved extinction ...

This formidable power is not only absolute, but also inhumane, oppressive and counter-productive in protecting children. Child removal authority is instrumental to the self-serving profit making purpose in the child protection industry. It allows service providers to define what child abuse is, hence controlling the demand of their services. They dictate quality definitions of their services, manipulate government "child protection" policies, ignore the needs and views of parents whom they call "clients". They possess the retaliatory means and often used them to suppress dissatisfaction, criticism and complaints. They not only retaliate on parents who dare to resist, but also on their colleagues and other service providers who refuse to be accomplice of the cartel (as evident in the testimonies of former "child protection" workers in the news footage embedded at the top left hand corner of this page). It is safe to contend that they create more problems than they solve and has reduced humanity to the level of brutes.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Corruption in this industry is so sophisticated that there is no head to cut off. Their operations are so shrewdly structured that it is almost impossible to convict perpetrators and racketeers in a court of law. Whoever betrays the principle of accrual of power and money, others betray him.

Like fighting drugs, the only way to stop this corruption is by cutting off the involuntary supply of human inventory. Revoke child removal authority and kill CFCSA. Such oppressive power and harmful law have no place in a civilized society.

State-sponsored child removal is a clear and present danger to our nation, families, society and children. Ironically, the child protection industry is the largest institutional risk to the safety of children as evident by the abuses, critical injuries and deaths of children "in care". Service providers in the industry are indeed brilliant to devise such a lucrative scheme to rip off taxpayers using despicable means and get away unnoticed and unpunished for such a long time. We cannot think of any other scheme that is comparable in term of scale and success in concealing its hideous nature and in garnering support from naive and gullible people.

[This page was conceptualized on 25 October 2011, published on 25 October 2011, last revised on 1 November 2011.]