An ex "child protection" supervisor
told the real nature of her work ...

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association © 2007

The glossary in the child protection industry is linked to Dufferin Voices of Children Alliance (VOCA). Dufferin VOCA aimed to reform Children's Aid Societies ("child protection" agencies, MCFD's counterpart in Ontario) of the province of Ontario, with emphasis on Dufferin County. Efforts to reform have been outlawed through changes to their bylaws. Information surrounding reform is now historical, but in our view, contains merits that are worth referencing.

Most Canadians do not have first hand experience with the child protection agency of the province they reside. In British Columbia, 9,956 children were under government "care" as of March 31, 2001. Including extended family members, it is safe to contend that less than 1% of the population is affected. Distressed parents with children removed face immense difficulties and a long legal process to get their children back. Many children and their families suffer unnecessary ministry-created trauma and prolonged separation with loved ones. Public awareness is important to deter abuse of power under the pretext of child protection. These frequently asked questions (FAQ) answer questions and clear doubts many visitors may have. The problems at hand may appear absurd, but are very real. The scenarios discussed in these FAQ are derived from questions we had encountered before. They are not hypothetical.

From time to time, new FAQ (denoted by the button) will be added. Please check this page regularly.

Please click the question number (Q#) to view our answer.

MCFD = Ministry of Children and Family Development

CFCSA = Child, Family and Community Service Act

MLA = Member of Legislative Assembly (a provincial politician)



Q1. Given your limited resources, PAPA's services may only assist a very small number of distressed parents.  To help more effectively, is PAPA involved in any political lobbying activities to rectify the root problem by reforming child protection law?
Q2. I heard an allegation that the child protection industry is a lucrative business.  Most parents under the scrutiny of MCFD are underprivileged.  They cannot afford the expensive foster parent, counseling and legal fees, ... etc.  Social workers never earn an extra cent by removing more children.  How can poor parents attract special interest groups to prey on them?
Q3. I can comprehend that special interest groups have the financial incentive to milk the child protection system and prolong child protection cases for their self-serving interest.  To drag on child protection proceedings, it needs the cooperation of the judiciary.  Judges are impartial.  They are not short of work.  How does it benefit judges by having more cases in their courtrooms and prolong child protection cases as long as possible?
Q4. Child protection hearings are civil in nature.  In most cases, social workers seek the custody of children and supervision orders to compel parents to do what social workers see fit.  They seldom seek financial compensation from parents of their "services" rendered.  How could social workers exact financial punishment on parents?
Q5. The safety of children is of paramount importance to most Canadians who respect law and order.  Parents under the scrutiny of MCFD must have done something seriously wrong.  Otherwise, MCFD will not commit so much resources to pursue their cases.  It is acceptable to err on the side of caution as children under MCFD's care are certainly safe.  What is your view on this?
Q6. The judiciary is required by law to make child protection decisions on a timely basis.  Why some child protection cases take months, many take years, to settle?
Q7. If allegations, such as forcing parents to divorce, to admit guilt in court after removing their children, to abort unborn child, are true and supported by tangible evidence and credible testimonies, why don't these parents take their cases to court?
Q8. Canada ardently advocates human rights and assistance of underprivileged groups.  Is the custody of one's own children a charter right?
Q9. Social workers have tremendous power over parents.  I have children under 19 years of age.  Will my participation in PAPA jeopardize my children?
Q10. My children are over 19 or I have no kid.  Why should I care?
back to top
Q11. It appears that PAPA is compromising the government's child protection effort.  Is this sedition?
Q12. I have read the CFCSA.  It is quite impeccable.  How could ministry-created trauma possibly happen unless parents have done something seriously wrong?
Q13. I am a realistic person.  PAPA has limited resources.  Will your effort be futile?
Q14. Many allegations in your web site are absurd and unbelievable.  Do you have any evidence supporting these cases?
Q15. If I have decided not to support you, what else would you say to convince me to change my mind?
Q16. I know some good social workers. They do not abuse their authority and are truly working for the best interests of children and families. Is your stereotyping ignorant and unfair?
Q17. I am with you.  What support does PAPA need?
Q18. I (or someone I know) would like to share my experience with MCFD. Is PAPA interested to communicate with me?
Q19. Is racial discrimination a motivating factor in state-sponsored child removal? (asked by a Hong Kong TV News reporter)
Q20. I am a Christian. Romans 13:1-7 requires that I submit to authority. It is against my religious belief to disagree with the government. What do you say?
back to top
Q21. The government needs statutory authority to carry out its child protection mandate. If duly exercised, CFCSA gives the proper power to protect children by removing them from abusive parents. Reducing this statutory authority will compromise child protection. Do you have a better alternative?
Q22. If PAPA's allegations of abuse of authority are really so serious, why politicians do not rectify the problem?(posted on March 10, 2008)
Q23. I read an allegation that state-sponsored child removal is a crime against humanity. This activity is duly authorized by a statute and is certainly legal. Are you out of your mind? (posted on March 10, 2008)
Q24. If the problem of state-sponsored child removals is so serious, why the media does not air it? (posted on March 10, 2008)
Q25. I am under MCFD's scrutiny for a child protection concern. Does it help if I move to another province? (posted on March 10, 2008)
Q26. What obligations do I have once I become a PAPA member? (posted on March 10, 2008)
Q27. If I support PAPA, it is likely that our effort will result in a reduction in tax? (posted on March 10, 2008)
Q28. Will anyone know that I become your member? (posted on March 10, 2008)
Q29. Parents scrutinized by MCFD have a serious credibility problem. No one would believe their testimonies. How can you convince a reasonable person to believe that they have been oppressed by child protection social workers who generally have a good social reputation? (asked by a well-known Vancouver lawyer who is also a city councillor on May 22, 2008, posted on July 3, 2008)

back to top

[This page was added since inception, last revised on 23 March 2015.]