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.
Death while in care list

Empirical Data & Statistics in State-Sponsored "Child Protection" Activities

The MCFD has many mandates. We focus on its "child protection" function governed by the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA).

Most Canadians believe that their government is properly using child removal authority to protect children. Tax dollars spent in "child protection" activities are helping families in need. When MCFD removes a child, there must be a complaint supported by good evidence. Parents must have done something wrong to attract MCFD's attention. The government will not make such decision lightly. Social workers only intervene where there is a genuine concern about a child's safety. They will not arbitrarily remove children from their parents. Professionals like "child protection" social workers are well trained to protect children and must act if children are in immediate danger. Although it is painful to parents, child removals are in the best interest of children and hence justified. Most of the problems MCFD faces are due to lack of funding and insufficient statutory power given to "child protection" social workers to carry out their child protection duties.

The laws governing state-sponsored child removals are fair, impeccable and serve the best interests of children and society. Child protection hearings are open to the public. Judges are impartial and do not derive personal benefits if they rule one way or another. Like in criminal laws, there is justice, accountability and transparency at every front. A child's safety is of paramount importance. It is acceptable to allow authorities to err on the side of caution because foster homes are known safe places.

Let us begin by reading a news article titled "Children's Aid Society workers should be reined in, critics say" published by National Post on June 12, 2009.

           

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time,
but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln

           

This article portraits a situation totally contrary to the aforesaid public perception. Let us further examine the empirical and statistical data surrounding state-sponsored "child protection" under the following headings (please click the headings to view the contents):

  1. Impacts on Children, Families and Society
  2. Death of Children In Care (Worldwide)
  3. Financial Incentives to Special Interests and Burden on Taxpayers
  4. Challenges on Human Rights, Natural Justice and Civil Liberty
  5. Contradictions Against Mainstream Values in a Free and Democratic Society [added on October 15, 2009]
  6. Structural Corruption in the "Child Protection" Industry [added on October 29, 2009]

Remarks

Classic End Results of State-Sponsored Child Removal
(Please click the photos of Reena Virk and Sherry Charlie to view the story details and hover your mouse to the blue captions to view comments.)
Virk, Reena Charlie, Sherry Downtown Eastside homeless Downtown Eastside criminal Downtown Eastside prostitutes Downtown Eastside junkie
Reena Virk, Sherry Charlie and
others were killed while "in care".
Many become homeless, criminals, prostitutes and junkies after they grow up.
These photos were taken in Vancouver Downtown Eastside.
parents protest against child removals
Parents protested outside Premier Gordon Campbell's constituency office in 2009.
Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen
Gordon Campbell and Colin Hansen announced HST in August 2009.
(Photo credit: Bruce Stotesbury)


The cartoon above depicts how special interest groups milk taxpayers under the pretext of "child protection". Unlike the family in this cartoon, most parents lose their children at the end of the process. Parents with children removed are facing these grim realities everyday in the "best place" on earth to live.

Child protection is a noble cause. However, commercialization of many "professional" services has changed it into a nightmare for parents. It is now an abnormal product of excessive government and, in some cases, radicalism. Most state-sponsored "child protection" activities are cost inefficient, counter productive, unnecessary, oppressive in nature and have betrayed the original legislative intent of caring for families and children in need.

Under the pretext of "child protection", service providers in this industry have acquired tremendous statutory power and influences on government. Without sufficient check and balance, they:

  1. determine who need their "services";
  2. prescribe what and how much "services" families should need;
  3. define the quality of "service" rendered;
  4. suppress complaints and dissatisfaction of their clients.

Corruption in "child protection"
industry in English speaking nations

Motivated by money, special interest groups aggressively target state-sponsored "child protection" activities to market their services. Senior government employees and elected officials welcome them with open arms for their mutual benefits. Once integrated, the combined force utilizes a very successful strategy of targeting a very small percentage of the population who typically come from the underprivileged social class that cannot garner enough support to combat the oppression. Lack of government accountability, undue trust on government and public apathy further worsen the nightmare. Parents have little or no representation in both government policy making and legislation.

The financial burden born by society to deal with the aftermath is incalculable. Lacking parental care and love, many removed children become homeless, addicted to drugs and alcohol, or engage in criminal activities after they grow up. Taxpayers have to pay more taxes as tax dollars are wasted in such counter-productive activities. People suffer from social and criminal problems associated with removed children. The only certain consequence is a continuous demand of social services and higher tax.

The power of government has become more pervasive and devious. Those in power want only to perpetuate it and people are the victims. Most English-speaking nations, especially those who a colonial background, have this oppressive "child protection" law run by special interest groups for a very long time. Giving bureaucrats absolute power of this nature and magnitude will render the spirit of law and justice irrelevant. We, as a nation, will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over supposedly for the purpose of care and protection. And what then is the nature of government when it has no fear of accountability? We should shudder at the thought. Oppressing its own people is for countries who fear their citizens, not countries that cherish and protect them.

In view of the ample amount of evidence proving there is structural corruption, there is no question that reform is very much needed. The relevant question now is why nothing has been done to rectify it. This is not only a socio-political issue, but also a moral issue. Our children are our future. Their best interests and right to be nourished by their parents are at stake. Families in need are targeted for financial exploitation. Some are unnecessarily destroyed. Scrutinized parents and removed children need your help. We implore you to seize this issue and seek accountability. It is our time to rise again to secure the future of our children and our nation.




[This page was added on 25 December 2008, sub pages separated on 20 October 2010, last revised on 8 Feb 2018.]