Foster Home

To portray an image that removed children are in good hands, government needs to warehouse them in a system that the public trusts. Foster care is instrumental to the "child protection" industry. Government run foster care in British Columbia comprises of:

1. group home (a group of removed children, usually 8 to 10 of older ages live in a house operated by staff paid by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, MCFD); and


2. foster home (a family provides care for one or more removed children in their home).

According to the MCFD's foster care web page,

We are unsure whether the family referred therein is birth parent's family or foster family.

Furthermore, the MCFD's FAQ on foster care states the nature of foster care as:

Financial Incentives to Foster Parents

Confirmed by MCFD's reply to our Freedom of Information application, payments to foster parents from MCFD's budget alone is a 9-digit figure per fiscal year from 2001 to 2008. Furthermore, the federal government provides Children's Special Allowances (CSA, a tax-free monthly federal payment made to agencies, institutions and foster parents who are responsible for the care and education of children under 18 who physically reside in Canada and who are not in the care of their parents). These payments are governed by the Children’s Special Allowances Act (1992, c. 48, Sch.). If the children removed are Aboriginals, the federal government further subsidizes their removal on a per head basis. To special interests in the "child protection" and the adoption industry, this is one of the main sources where the big money comes from.

According to the figures provided by Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat in Table 2.1 below, CSA payments are in 9-digit figures and are rising every year. CSA is also a financial incentive for provincial "child protection" agencies to remove children from their parents and keep them in government sponsored foster/group homes as long as possible.

The 2011 federal budget announced on 6 June 2011 stipulates that for 2012 and subsequent years, the payment of a CSA to an agency (such as MCFD) in respect of a child who is a former Crown ward and who has been placed in the custody of a legal guardian, tutor (in Quebec) or a similar caregiver and the agency provides financial assistance for the maintenance of the child. This Budget would ensure that an agency receives the CSA in respect of a child that it continues to financially support even if the child has been released to the care of a court-appointed guardian, tutor or similar caregiver.

This extended payment of CSA will further create financial incentive to remove and adopt children.

How Do "Child Protection" Workers Use Foster Homes of Different Qualities?

Like other service providers in the child protection industry, there are good and bad foster homes run by people with different motives. Former foster mother Mary Callahan, who had been in the business for 20 years, confirms the foregoing in her testimony provided to us.

Many seasoned "child protection" workers are calculating and know how to use situations to their best interests. The following are our observations of how they use foster homes of different qualities:

1. Good Foster Homes

   However few they are, good foster homes are best used as a showcase to convince the public that there are substantial values in the "child protection" industry and less fortunate children are in better hands when in foster care.

   Good foster homes are also used to convince older children (those over 12 years of age) to remain in care when MCFD does not have a solid case for removal or custody application. Children who take the bait may be moved to other foster homes or be adopted out if MCFD obtains a continuing custody order. The risk of the latter is discussed at length in our "Adoption & Child Removal" page.

2. Average or Mediocre Foster Homes

   Most foster homes fall under this category where the primary motive is money. These homes are used as warehousing facility of removed children and a money making machine to foster parents who profess to be providing tender loving care homes to children in need.

3. Bad Foster Homes

   A dirty foster home in Saanich, British Columbia

   Bad foster homes can be characterized in many aspects, such as poor sanitary, physically or sexually abusive, or even murderous. The government certainly wants the public to believe that they do not exist, despite the fact that some removed children are repeatedly raped or killed when in care.

   Common sense may suggest that these homes are a liability to the Ministry and have no value to "child protection" workers. In fact, bad foster homes are often used to beat parents into submission. Few parents could bear to see the pain, the unexplained wounds and the poor living standard their children suffered in care. Defiant parents will become submissive when their children are placed in bad homes. Many are willing to admit whatever "child protection" workers want them to admit to get their children out of these homes. Of course, many end up losing their children permanently.

Removed children seldom stay in one foster home. At the discretion of "child protection" workers, they are placed in different homes, sometimes far from the homes of their parents and the schools these children attend. We have witnessed some children shuffled to three homes in four months and some young children hauled to school by taxi not escorted by adult. While Section 4(1)(c) of CFCSA defines the importance of continuity in the child's care as one of the best interests of child, one would find this hard to comprehend why removed children are moved frequently. The following are some clues to solve this puzzle:

1. As explained above, "child protection" workers use foster homes of different quality to achieve different objectives at different phases of their game. Hence, children are shuffled to serve this purpose.


2. Foster parents would like to have a share of the tax dollar pie. To keep them in the foster home inventory pool, "child protection" workers have to give them financial incentive every now and then. This creates and stabilizes a major special interest instrumental to the child protection industry.


3. At times, there are conflicts of various nature between "child protection" workers and foster parents. We have been approached by some foster parents who wish to share their grievances. Like punishing birth parents, removing children from foster parents is often used as a weapon to exact financial punishment on those who dare to say no to these powerful bureaucrats.


4. Location of foster home has been discovered by birth parents, often disclosed by children during supervised visits. Despite whether parents have done anything to recover their kidnapped children, this is considered a serious security risk. A typical response from MCFD is applying for a restraining order prohibiting parents to approach the foster home, suspension of supervised visitation and phone access, move children farther away.

   If "child protection" workers are serving their intended purposes of helping and developing families in need, why would they expect their clients (as parents are often called) to pose any risk to them or to their partners in child protection industry.

Of course, there are legitimate reasons for moving children, such as foster home closure and foster parents retirement, at odd times. It is noteworthy to mention that when challenged on shuffling children in court, judges seldom make a binding order to oblige "child protection" workers to keep children in a continuous and stable environment. Inadvertently or not, the judiciary fails to honor the spirit of law, in particular, Section 4(1)(c) of CFCSA.

Furthermore, some foster parents are so subservient that they are prepared to do whatever it takes to please "child protection" workers who have the power to broker foster care business to whoever they see fit. We have witnessed one foster mother who phoned birth parent, provoked a fight and recorded the conversation as evidence to support the Ministry's custody application. We are unsure whether she did this on her own accord to please "child protection" workers or on order from them. Money talks and conscience is often secondary. The lawsuit against the government from former foster mother Teresa Iezzi below supports the foregoing.

State-sponsored child removal activities expose taxpayers to lawsuits and contingent liabilities. Sometimes, MCFD's foster parents could end up suing MCFD (to be more precise taxpayers) for damages. A former foster parent in Burnaby, British Columbia, Teresa Iezzi, went public to The Province on May 11, 2009, just one day before the provincial election. She alleged that she contracted Hepatitis C from an attack of foster child under her care and her foster parenting contract was terminated by MCFD as a result of this. She is seeking apology and financial compensation of an unspecified amount from MCFD. It is noteworthy to remark that she was earning $7,500 per month, which was her main source of income while fostering children removed by MCFD. Assuming that her income was the same at the onset of her fostering business 22 years ago, she had earned $1,980,000 from taxpayers.

This lucrative industry has attracted many service providers whose primary interest is to make money. The well being of children is often irrelevant to them.

Is Foster Home a Known Safe Place?

In Canada, many judges are of the opinion that foster home is a known safe place. Therefore, it is justified to err on the side of caution and make custody order in favor of the director of MCFD.

The decision "British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services) v. G.(R.), 2001 BCPC 32" (Docket: 92-3735, Registry: Vancouver) made on 29 January 2001 is typical to prove the foregoing. The Honorable Judge Jane Auxier ruled that:

She defined what is considered and not considered in presentation hearing. She erred on the side of caution and granted interim custody to the director (hence ensuring a prolonged separation between parent and children), alleging that foster care is a known safe place. Furthermore, cooperation (often defined as doing whatever "child protection" workers demand) with MCFD is an evaluating factor considered by court. Access of removed child is recommended but not ordered.

To evaluate the propriety of this rationale, it is important to examine whether empirical evidence agrees with the notion that foster homes are known safe place.

Negative Effects of Foster Care on Children

While government has turned on its propaganda machinery to convince Canadians to believe that children are better off in foster care, empirical evidence and research have proven the contrary. The following article contains the research results of foster care on children.

3. According to the joint major study released by the Representative for Children and Youth and the Provincial Health Officer on February 23, 2009:
   • 41.2% of children (12-17) in care appear in youth court (Table 1 of this joint major study) versus 6.4% of general population, be mindful that children under the age of 12 cannot be charged of criminal offence in Canada;
   • 24.5% of children in care graduate versus 74.4% of general population (Table 5 of this joint major study);
   • 88.6% of children in care receive income assistance by the age of 19 versus 29.5% of general population (Table 7 of this joint major study)
4. According to the Growing Up In B.C. report released by the Representative for Children and Youth and the Provincial Health Officer on October 18, 2009:
   • Children in care are nearly three times more likely to consider suicide – and nearly six times more likely to have attempted suicide at least once – than youth who have never been in care.
   • Aboriginal children and children in care are less likely to experience success in school.
   • Children in care are more likely to engage in risky behaviour, such as using tobacco, alcohol and drugs.
   • Children in care are more likely to have gone to bed hungry.
   • Youth in care consistently talked about the challenges they face in everyday life, such as creating and maintaining long-term relationships, having no-one to see them graduate, not having adult support or financial means to encourage them to do well in school or apply for post-secondary education.

[The above table was last updated on 23 December 2011.]

Children died in the hands of "child protection" agencies of their governments are memorized in the following web site:

Statistics above do not include atrocities such as sexual and emotional abuse of children in foster homes. Be mindful that many complaints of this nature are simply ignored by the police. The experience of Ms. Diana Holden (see below) speaks to this effect.

Mary Callahan: Testimony from A Former Foster Parent

On the supply side of the equation, Mary Callahan is an emergency room nurse, cardiopulmonary nurse educator and a former foster parent. She is the author of "Fighting for Tony", "Memoirs of a Baby Stealer". She saw the corruption in the "child protection" industry and has given her testimony from a service provider's perspective.

Despite the presence of a small number of good foster parents, Ms. Callahan stated that there are more foster parents at the other end of the spectrum who foster for money and don't care at all about the children placed with them. This lends support to refute the judicial position that foster homes are known safe environment. Please click here to view her testimony.

Remarks

Foster parents are one of the true beneficiaries in the "child protection" industry. Statistics suggested that atrocities in foster homes mentioned in this page are not isolated incidents. It casts serious doubt, if not refutes outright, on the judicial allegation that foster homes are known safe place. It follows that erring on the side of caution to remove children from their families and place them in foster homes to protect them is an invalid and irresponsible proposition.

Like many other service providers in the child protection industry, many foster parents tend to be self-serving, self-righteous and self-extolling. The appreciation banner on the left (taken in a sky train station in Burnaby, British Columbia) grossly exaggerated the value of foster parents to society.

This is not to say that there is no good foster home and all foster parents are abusers and provide their services for financial reason. However, the presence of good foster parents is not sufficient to rectify corruption in the "child protection" industry. Ironically, the industry, armed by the power to remove children at will and motivated by tax dollars, is the largest institutional risk to the safety and best interests of children.