Lessons Learned From This Case

1. The Baynes of Surrey, B.C. experienced similar abuse in 2007

   This case is similar in nature with the Bayne's case in Hope and Surrey, British Columbia, Canada in 2007. After the news on the right was aired on 20 May 2008, all the Bayne children were removed shortly after. Retaliations are common when parents go public or stand defiant against CPS. The mother lost her job because MCFD told her employer about the child protection concern. Due to the loss of income, they failed to pay the mortgage and lost their family home. During the persecution, the parents worked as night janitors so that they could see their children during the day. After a few years of massive oppression, the Baynes children were returned and are now silent. CPS-created atrocities continue around the world.


2. When CPS is involved, husbands are often found to be the perpetrator of domestic violence and child abuse, mothers are considered weak and unable to protect children from abusive and violent fathers. Therefore, children are theirs to keep. That said, an unprecedented judgment J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216 is an exception of the foregoing.


3. “I am in fear. I have nightmares at night,” said Brenda Burns during an interview in January. “I don’t feel good about my country, I don’t feel like it’s a safe place.” “I have lost all faith in the judicial system.” Most parents whom CPS called clients share the same feelings after experiencing the oppressive nature of CPS. Losing all faith in both government and the judiciary is natural and justified after witnessing corruption of this magnitude. The most disturbing fact is elected officials choose to do nothing to stop the racket. Rare birds like Nancy Schaefer conveniently died after publicly denounced CPS.
   
   Ironically, CPS-infested countries often speak highly of human rights and rule of law. Unfortunately, most Canadians and Americans are not aware of how vulnerable they are when scrutinized by the powerful CPS and how harmful CPS is to children and society until they encounter them first hand. In most cases, it is already too late.


4. The Burns case is not an isolated incident. Persecution on families and parents of wanton cruelty are happening more often than what Canadians and Americans would believe in nations that ardently speak of freedom and democracy. This is a disgrace to humanity. An elected assembly could trample a man's right as much as a tyranny.


5. Oppressed parents often live in fear and anxiety even after their children are returned by court. CPS will not leave them alone and continue to find excuses to remove their children. Supervision orders are often imposed after children are returned. CPS workers will look for anything under the sun to justify a breach and a re-removal. Fishing expeditions like the unannounced police raid without a warrant at inconvenient hours are common CPS ruses.


6. Some readers may not understand why Brenda still has to face a civil trial from CPS after she was cleared in the criminal trial of child abuse.
   
   In law, these are two separate issues. Most child protection litigations are civil in nature. This effectively eliminates all charter rights protection in child protection hearings because such protection only applies in criminal trials. Furthermore, civil child custody litigations launched by CPS require a much lower standard of proof (often a reverse onus of proof in many cases) and hearings may be as informal as a judge may allow (often in favour of CPS). Parents accused of child abuse often face criminal charges and civil litigations of child custody from CPS. Even if courts rule return of children to parents, it does not mean that their problem with CPS is over. CPS could continue harassment under the pretext of child protection, especially in high profile cases or in cases where court decisions limit their power, scope of activities and financial interests.
   
   What the Burns are going through is typical in CPS scrutiny.


7. Unannounced home visits without search warrant are common CPS fishing expeditions. What they are after is to catch a breach of court order (often supervision orders or bail conditions) so that they could remove children. They could come around the clock escorted by a team of police officers to intimidate parents and to embarrass them by creating a scene in the neighborhood.


8. Obviously, Naomi has a grandfather Charles Burns who CPS does not have a child protection concern. Most child protection laws (for instance Section 71 of CFCSA in B.C.) oblige child protection agencies to give priority to relatives when placing removed children. Why Naomi was placed in foster care after removal? The child protection industry (hereinafter known as the industry unless otherwise specified) is a self-serving racket that has little respect of laws and often puts the financial interests of its service providers ahead of the best interests of children.


9. The objective of destroying the livelihood of parents is to exact punishment for standing defiant against an oppressor and to create financial difficulty which could be used as a reason for removing children and put them in care.


10. Legal duty to report suspected child abuse stipulated in most child protection laws establishes a very powerful witch hunt network. Many innocent parents fall prey after good Samaritans or malicious informants call CPS.


11. CPS agencies around the world all cite confidentiality and refuse to comment on individual cases. All they will say to reporters are that child safety is of paramount importance and will only return children when it is safe to do so. Who are they really protecting? Themselves and their financial interests or children, some of whom end up dying in care? This self-serving response is another way of saying it is none of your business, don't ask.



12. Gary and Melissa Gates of Texas spent $175,000 in 8 years to have his name removed from the child abuser registry in Texas

    At the point of writing, only Manitoba and Nova Scotia have child abuser registry in Canada. Whose names should be entered are often at the discretion of child protection workers, not the court. It could cost parents huge amount of legal fees to have their names removed. Brenda Burns' problem of having her name unduly entered in the child abusers registry is not an isolated incident. Gary and Melissa Gates of Texas had the same problem. They spent $175,000 in 8 years to have his name removed from the child abuser registry (the news video on the right). This suggests that the more power we give CPS, the more oppressive they could become. If they cannot incriminate or to plunder parents at one angle, they will try other options open to them.


13. Child protection is a noble cause. But when service providers with absolute power to remove children motivated by job security and financial interests create a self-serving industry, it opens government to corruption and racketeering. Often, children are at higher risk when service providers are more preoccupied with aggrandizing. Social problems created are clearly demonstrated by long term poverty, inability to live independently, over representation in foster care and in prison, addiction to harmful substances and mental illnesses found in Aboriginal families who had gone through the residential schools. Modern child protection is a derivative of this oppressive child removal regime. The only difference is that people of all ethnicities are at risk.


14. Characterizing the oppressive CPS modus operandi as legal terrorism undermines the negative impacts of state-sponsored child removal on society. In our view, this is legalized crimes against humanity as state-sponsored child removal results in enforced disappearance of people at times causing death and other CPS-created atrocities such as sexual and physical abuses.


15. Tax laws dictate that donations to assist distressed parents with children removed are not tax deductible. Donations to the Burns and to non-profit organizations like us are of course no exception. This suggests how various levels of government work in collaboration to mitigate fund raising against an oppressive racket that spawns under government protection.