Former Georgia State Senator Nancy
Schaefer spoke on CPS Corruption.

Nancy Schaefer's web site
is linked here.

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-now
Bookmark and Share
PAPA logo
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. Findings therein confirm our views and support the merit of our cause. Continuous 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. If you have evidence of misfeasance or abuse of children in foster care, please come forward and contact us.
Our site contains vast amount of information on child protective services (CPS). Please hover your mouse over the navigation icons below to access the most frequently sought information by various categories of browsers.
parents must read
  1. MCFD Tactics
  2. MCFD Surveillance
  3. MCFD found liable for misfeasance
  4. Psychotherapy
  5. Flaws of CFCSA
  6. Absolute Power and Corruption
  7. Myths & Reality
  8. On-line Service Application
  1. MCFD found liable for misfeasance
  2. MCFD Tactics
  3. MCFD Surveillance
  4. MCFD & The First Nation
  5. Unreported Deaths of Albertan Foster Children
  6. Child Removal and Human Organ Harvesting
  7. Empirical and Statistical Data
  8. Child Removal Cases
  9. Video Archives
contact us
most popular
  1. MCFD found liable for misfeasance
  2. MCFD & The First Nation
  3. The Child Protection Industry
  4. Unreported Deaths of Albertan Foster Children
  5. Our Comment on "When Talk Trumped Service"
  6. "The problem with Children’s Aid Societies" by Barbara Kay for National Post
  7. Powerful As God (2011 documentary)
  8. CPS Quotas: How Child Protective Services is Incentivized To Take Children video
  9. Documentary on the Child Protection Industry
  10. "The Child Abuse Laws Which Could Destroy Your Reputation"
  11. 3-part WLKY Target 32 Investigates (Kentucky, U.S.A.):
    1. "CPS Makes Shocking Allegations at 2 Moms Part 1 of 3"
    2. "CPS Does About Face, Accuses Parents Of Abuse Part 2 of 3"
    3. "CPS Makes More Disturbing Allegations Against Parents Part 3 of 3"
  12. "Child Protective System WLKY Louisville Part 1"; and
    "Child Protective System WLKY Louisville Part 2"
  13. Documentary on the Ministry of Children and Family Development Part 1 and Part 2
  14. "The Negative Effects of Foster Care on Removed Children" (Wikipedia)
  15. "Mass CPS corruption Part 2"
  16. "Deconstructing America Part 1" "Deconstructing America Part 2"
  17. "Death of a foster child Dontel Jeffers, Dorchester, Massachusetts, U.S.A. (Part 1)" "(Part 2)" ABC News
  18. U.S. Republican Senator Nancy Schaefer spoke on "child protective service" (CPS) corruption video
  19. "Children's Aid Society workers should be reined in" National Post
  20. Wrongful Removal of Christina Harrison's Baby
  21. Jessica Laboy case
  22. Removal of the 13 Gates Children in Texas, U.S.A.
  23. "Married to the State: How government colonizes the family"
    by Professor Stephen Baskerville (September 2009)

Hearsay Evidence

Generally, hearsay evidence is inadmissible. Law of hearsay and common law govern a strict exclusionary rule relaxed by a complex array of exceptions. Of course, this does not apply in CFCSA where hearsay information is specifically allowed.

Some common exceptions (not exhaustive) are:

  1. Dying Declaration: Statements made by a dying person are usually accepted as being true, based on the assumption that a person does not wish to die with a guilty conscience. Although the reliability of this assumption is questionable, the hearsay evidence is admissible if the following conditions are met:
    • The trial should relate to the murder or manslaughter of the dying person.
    • The statement should relate to the cause of death.
    • The speaker must have known that death was certain and near.
    • That had he lived, he would have been a competent witness.
  2. Statements made in the presence and hearing of accused: It is a rule of law that an incriminatory statement, made in the presence of the accused, may be used as evidence against him, if it can be shown that by his words, reaction (including remaining silence) or demeanor he accepted the statement.
  3. Res Gestae (Spontaneous Declarations): This term may be interpreted as meaning "part of the thing itself". "the thing" being the criminal act. A statement, declaration, or exclamation which accompanies and explains the criminal act charged, is admissible if it is:
    • an involuntary exclamation made without time for reflection or fabrication, and
    • made either during, immediately before or immediately after the occurrence.

    The statement must be spontaneous and made while influenced by the emotion of the event. It might be made by the accused, the victim or a witness.

Exceptions to the exceptions: Where hearsay evidence is admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule, a judge may still refuse to admit the evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. On the other hand, if hearsay evidence is not admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule, a judge may admit it provided that necessity and reliability are established. This double talk in law allows a judge latitude to determine the admissibility of hearsay evidence. This is authorized per Section 37 (6.1) of Canada Evidence Act that the court may receive into evidence anything that, in the opinion of the court, is reliable and appropriate, even if it would not otherwise be admissible under Canadian law, and may base its decision on that evidence.

Legal issues surrounding the admissibility of hearsay evidence were elaborated in:

  1. the appeal of Robert Dennis Starr (Appellant) versus Regina (Respondent) heard in the Supreme Court of Canada on December 3, 1998; and
  2. Regina versus Dr. Abdullah Khan in a child sexually assault charge.

[This page was added on November 5, 2009]