Lessons Learned From This Case

1. In the news video footage embedded at the top left corner, Frank Wilson alleged that MCFD often retaliates (by reducing visitation right) whenever he questions or challenges the Ministry's position. The Wilson expects retaliatory responds after they went public. Oppressed parents with children removed often face similar retaliation if they disagree, question or challenge child protection workers. Retaliation on parents who rock the boat or refuse to obey is very common in CPS (child protective service) infested jurisdictions. In view of MCFD's absolute power to remove children, the Wilsons are lucky that their own children are still in their care. Absolute power not only corrupts absolutely, it also attracts the absolutely corruptible. Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency. CPS has them all.


2. While it is justified for MCFD to get involved and cared for the children after the homocide in this case, children should be placed with immediate family members if they post no risk to the safety of the children. Under the pretext of child safety, returning children to families often takes too long. Keeping removed children as long as possible and bouncing them back and forth in different foster homes are very common in the child protection industry. Why? Because too many service providers need to be fed. Such racketeering will inevitably prolong removed children in foster care, which does not serve children's best interests in most cases.


3. Most people may wonder why it takes so long to return the children to the care of Frank Wilson. The reason is very simple. Because they are natives. "MCFD & The First Nation" contains our views on this issue supported by analysis and empirical data. In most provinces in Canada, about 50% of removed children in government care are Aboriginal. Based on statistics from 1998 to 2000, an Aboriginal child stands a chance of removal by MCFD 10 times higher than a non-native child on a per capita basis.
   
   The federal government subsidizes removal of native children on a per head basis. Aboriginal children are cash cows to provincial governments in seeking transfer payment from the federal government. The longer they stay in foster care, the more federal subsidies provincial governments will get. The Wilsons children are high value targets. After all, there is economies of scale: three kids in one case. Under the pretext of child protection and the financial incentives, why not?


4. Wait a minute. Did the federal government renounce residential schools and cultural assimilation? Yes, Prime Minister Stephen Harper formally apologized in 2008 for such inhumane and barbaric system. This does not mean that the oppression has stopped. Federal subsidies and the 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) continue to provide financial incentive for child removal. Cultural assimilation is no longer needed because most Aboriginal people have already been culturally assimilated. The First Nation has ceased to be a sovereign power that could threaten the current regime. The foregoing is evident in the Wilson's case. Angila, Frank and Leanne all look more Caucasian than Aboriginal (probably due to mixed marriage) and have Anglo-Saxon last name. English is probably their mother tongue and the only language they could speak. It appears that they have lost their heritage. Of course, residential schools can now be renounced or even denounced. Politicians who condemn residential schools have taken no part in the act and therefore will not be held responsible. Furthermore, they receive credit and gain more popularity in delivering lip service.
   
   Cultural assimilation is an irreversible process. Next to extermination. it is an effective way to destroy a culture, a nation and a sovereign power. After one or perhaps two generations, a people could be reduced to nothing more than a memory in history books if young children are coerced to be assimilated into the dominant culture. Modern child protection is a derivative of residential schools run under the same banner of child welfare. To mitigate resistance from the targets and to garner public support, cultural assimilation by way of child removal must be masqueraded as a protector and sugar-coated as child welfare. Beyond reasonable doubt, empirical evidence suggests that Aboriginals remains the prime target and the biggest victim in state sponsored child removal.


5. In the residential school era, state sponsored child removal was largely instituted for political purposes. After cultural assimilation was successfully completed and is no longer needed, the residential school system was gradually replaced by modern child protection for financial reasons. Under the pretext of child protection, service providers in the child protection industry form a cartel targeting the deep pocket of taxpayers. It has transformed into a multi-billion dollar cancerous industry nationwide with a rising budget almost every fiscal year. Lopsided laws, public apathy and ignorance are the industry's keys to success. While taxpayers bear the financial burden, society suffers from all kinds of social problems resulting from the aftermath of state sponsored child removal.


6. In a statement provided to Global News, Minister of Children and Family Development, Stephanie Cadieux said that she cannot speak to the specifics of any individual case. According to our legislation (CFCSA), the paramount concern is the safety and well-being of the child. While there are other legislative provisions and policy to support them, that concern comes first. She knows that the media will not be reporting this case everyday. Her problem will go away in no time. The Wilsons will continue their wild goose chase and jump the hoops set forth by bureaucrats until the Ministry digs up some dirt in them to decline their adoption application or return the children after foster parents milk enough from taxpayers.


7. Atrocities created by state sponsored child removal are often used as a weapon in politics. Opposition will use any opportunities, such as the Wilson's case, to embarrass the ruling party of failing to fulfill the mandate of protecting children and developing families. In our humble opinion, the only relevant agenda are how to protect children by leaving them in their parent's care except in some extreme life-threatening or sexual abuse situations and how to rid corruption and racketeering surrounding state sponsored child removal. Fighting corruption is not just good governance. It is self-defense and patriotism.