MCFD-Run Foster Home
Introduction: Foster Home and Child Removal
To create 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:
According to the MCFD's foster care web page,
"A family is the preferred living environment for children and youth."
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:
Foster care is not employment. Families choose to foster because of a concern for children and desire to contribute something special to their community. There is a monthly maintenance payment to foster parents to cover the direct costs of caring for a child. However, foster parents are not expected to give up employment. There is also a service payment available for the three levels of specialized foster care. The service payment recognizes the primary foster parent’s special parenting skill and extra time required to meet the needs of a child, but is not considered to be employment income."
The Ministry's position on the nature of payments to foster parents support the argument that these payments are non-taxable income to foster parents. We are unsure how Canada Revenue Agency rules on this issue. If this is indeed non-taxable income, foster care is a very lucrative business.
There are 3,255 MCFD-run foster homes in 2011. Foster home distribution by geographic areas in British Columbia is linked herein.
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.
It is noteworthy to remark that:
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:
 I'm sure the parents will see this decision as unfair to them - that I've put the onus on them to prove themselves, rather than putting the onus on the director to prove their inability. And I suppose that is what I have done. Primarily because of the very lengthy history of ongoing problems, the court must err on the side of caution, keeping J. in a known, safe environment rather than taking the risk of placing him in his parents' care."
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. News video footages on the right and the statistics below speak loud and clear.Furthermore, according to the joint major study released by the Representative for Children and Youth and the Provincial Health Officer on 23 February 2009:
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:
Why Removed Children Are Moved Around in Different Foster Homes?
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. They do not need approval from court or parents. 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. Page 5 of "Trauma, Turmoil and Tragedy" published by the Representative for Children and Youth on 15 November 2012 reported that 49% of children in care experienced an average of 12 moves while in care. 5 of the youth were moved more than 30 times.
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. Instable environment has drawn public criticism and judicial concerns.
Know that moving children around will attract unwanted attention, why do they do this? The following are some reasons that explain this phenomenon of the child protection industry:
Of course, there are other reasons for moving children from home to home, 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 as required by law. 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 speaks to this effect.
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.
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.
The following are empirical evidence provided by reports from various sources:
Critical Injuries, Deaths and Abuses on Children In Care
Critical Injuries and Deaths statistics published quarterly by the Representative of Children and Youth are linked herein.
Children died in the hands of "child protection" agencies of their governments are memorized in the web site below:
The following is noteworthy in this case:
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. For instance, the death of Alex Gervais in Abbotsford on 18 September 2015 is caused by his last foster parent who received $8,000 tax free income from MCFD and left Gervais in a hotel where he committed suicide. His death is just one of the many atrocities created by incompetent or irresponsible, or at times abusive, foster parents. This lends support to refute the judicial position that foster homes are known safe environment. Please click here to view her testimony.
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.
In view of previous efforts and past experience, this corrupt temple is unsalvageable. No meaningful reform is possible when the entire child protection industry is controlled by self-serving financially motivated service providers. The only solution to prevent racketeering and to build a safer future for our children is to revoke general child removal authority per Child Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA) (in B.C.).
[This page was conceptualized on 15 July 2011, published on 18 July 2011, last revised on 12 April 2017.]