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

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)


  • 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 college’s 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.]