"Child protection" social worker admitted sexual assault on removed children

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

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


  • The Social Workers Regulations stipulates that Ministry-employed "child protection" social workers as exempted persons. They are not required to register with any professional governing body such as the British Columbia College of Social Workers (BCCSW), hence not abide by the College's professional code of ethics. These bureaucrats are not professionally restrained.

    Former Children and Family Development Minister Tom Christensen spoke highly of the creation of a new B.C. College of Social Workers under a new Social Workers Act in a news release # 2008CFD0056-001789 (dated November 21, 2008). He stated that "Public protection will be enhanced by strengthening the colleges disciplinary powers and by requiring employers to report terminations for misconduct, incompetence or incapacity to the college."

    He conveniently omitted to mention that social workers in his Ministry are exempted persons under the Social Workers Regulations and are not required to be registered with the College. If he thinks that disciplinary power is important to protect the public, why his social workers, who have a lot more statutory power than other social workers outside his Ministry, are all exempted from registration and hence not subject to any disciplinary action of the College?

    Given their power and the nature of their work, "child protection" social workers should be abide by the highest standard of professional ethics and must face the heaviest punishment in professional disciplinary action and law should they fail to act within professional ethic code. This is absolutely necessary to protect the best interests of the public and the right of children to be cared by people who can be held professionally accountable. In British Columbia, they are not required to register with any professional governing body. The government has allowed the fox to run the hen house.

  • Bureaucrats are given a lot of latitude in law (for instance hearsay and double hearsay are widely accepted as "evidence" in child protection hearings), protected by their union, deeply entrenched in a bureaucracy covered by the pretext of "child protection" that render their activities unassailable.


  • When information about a specific case is requested, MCFD often takes the position that no information can be released due to privacy reason. This applies not only to media inquiry (Ms. Kathy Tomlinson of CBC had characterized MCFD as Ministry of No Information in her "Go Public" coverage on April 6, 2009) but also to formal applications in which birth parents under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act [FOIPPA] (citing that birth parents lost custody and therefore are not entitled to information on their children).

  • Bureaucrats often use cost as a deterrent to those who seek information from them. They will use any excuses to levy a charge (as in the FOIPPA) to prevent sensitive information to be released. A frequently used excuse is the information sought is of no public interest. Be mindful that government is a public body. Its activities, especially surrounding the issues on child removal, are of public interest. In the alternative, if the activities of a government ministry are of no public interest, that ministry should not exist.


back to the "Structural Corruption" page

Structural Corruption page


[This page was separated from the "Structural Corruption" page on November 7, 2009.]