Melissa Lopez, mother of 3 children, from Whitby, Ontario went public after CAS investigation
Melissa Lopez says she has a permanent CAS file after swapping dentists when the dumped dentist said daughter had 9 cavities.

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-now
Bookmark and Share
donate button
PAPA logo
notice board blogger icon
New links

Melissa Lopez and her 10-year-old daughter Elianna and son Matteo
Melissa Lopez and her 10-year-old daughter Elianna and son Matteo

Melissa Lopez Investigated by CAS After Dentist Reports Possible Oral Neglect

Case Particulars

Melissa Lopez, a mother of three, lives in Whitby, Ontario with her family. In 2016, she took her 10-year old daughter Elianna to see a new dentist and was told that her child had nine cavities. Since her family is not covered by dental insurance, fixing the alleged nine cavities will cost thousands of dollars.

Melissa sought a second opinion from another dentist who diagnosed fewer cavities. She completed the fillings of her daughter's cavities at that clinic. She did not notify the other dentist that she had switched or respond to the dental office's reminders about booking appointments.

In June 2017, Melissa received a call from the Children's Aid Society (CAS) and discovered that her first dentist had reported her for possible "oral neglect" of her daughter.

Melissa was shocked and wondered why a dentist would be allowed to report a parent without knowing all the facts. She is disturbed that she now has a permanent and irremovable record with the CAS, despite that she provided them with evidence of her daughter's dental work and was told the case was quickly closed.

The Position of RCDSO and CAS

Privacy is Not a Barrier Sharing Information with CAS, Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario

Melissa filed a complaint to the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario (RCDSO). The College said that the first dentist was just doing his job. Under the Child and Family Services Act, everyone in Ontario has a legal duty to report suspected child abuse and neglect. Health-care professionals and other people are required to report suspected neglect, anonymously if the informants so desire. Failure to do so could result in a fine. According to the director of communications of the RCDSO, Kevin Marsh, proof of abuse or neglect is not required to report. Just reasonable grounds will be sufficient.

Andrea Maenza, Communications Co-ordinator for the CAS in Durham, said that protocol is mandated and governed by the Child and Family Services Act. All child protection records must be kept for "accountability purposes," she explained and alleged that having a permanent CAS case file is not necessarily negative per se because all the information about the case, including why it was closed, is archived.

To Melissa, having a permanent child protection record with CAS is unsettling. She strongly believes that there is no just reason to report her at the onset and her CAS file should be removed to avoid derogatory perception.

An Anecdote on CAS's Accountability

Part 1: The Beginning of a CAS Foul-up

Speaking of CAS alleged accountability, another CAS created farce in May 2017 sheds light on this notion in the child protection industry.

A Scarborough mother was terrified when her six-year-old son was mistakenly pulled out of school and taken by the CAS for almost three hours on 2 May 2017. News agencies are not allowed to identify the family in order to protect the identity of the other child in the child protection case.

The mother was first alerted that something was wrong when she got an automated call from Walter Perry Public School informing that her son was not in class. She was then told by a school staff member the boys grandmother had picked him up from school around noon.

An hour later, the mother said staff explained that her son was accidentally taken out of school due to a case of mistaken identity. A CAS driver allegedly came to the school and asked to pick up a child using his first-name only. There are two children going to Walter Perry Public School with that name. Someone in the school assumed that it is the womans son wanted by CAS and pulled him from class. The boy was reportedly told by staff that his grandmother had come to take him home.

The boy later told his mother that the CAS driver took him by the arms and brought him to the car and roughly placed him inside the vehicle. CAS told the press that the boy was "never in distress and was happy" during the entire pick up process. The boy was returned to the school three hours later after he arrived at the CAS office and another mother commented they have the wrong boy. Needless to say, he was frightened by the rough removal by a stranger in school.

Part 2: The Farce Continues

City News learned that students were manning the school office during the lunch hour when the pickup took place. CAS attempted to evade the question whether there were any adults present in the office when the wrong boy was picked up.

Like in other child protection services created atrocities or scandals, the CAS did not respond to request for comment on their pickup protocol. The Toronto District School Board says an investigation is underway and a staff member has been sent home until the investigation is complete.

A superintendent has since called the boys mother to apologize and offer services to help the boy feel secure in school. It felt like I failed my son because no matter what, I feel like its my responsibility to keep him safe, the boy's mother said.

CAS on the News

If you think that the problems mentioned herein so far are isolated incidents and have not seriously harmed children and their families, you are wrong. The news footages below speak for themselves. Victims interviewed in these footages shared their fear, anger, how they and their children were harmed, deceitful and oppressive ruses used on them, lopsidedness of child protection laws against parents and the corruption in the child protection industry. They experienced the same horror parents scrutinized by the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD, the counterpart of CAS in British Columbia). We have documented ruses often used by child protection workers in a separate web page titled MCFD Tactics since inception of our web site. Ontario parents scrutinized by CAS confirmed the same.

Despite whether they are run by government directly or by non-profit organizations funded by government, it is safe to contend that most, if not all, child protection agencies are racketeering and oppressive in nature under the pretext of child protection.

Lessons Learned

    CPS govt marriage
  1. Atrocities created by state-sponsored child removal are not new. They attracted attention of the media every now and then. For instance, the National Post called for "Children's Aid Society workers should be reined in" on 12 June 2009. The news footages in the previous section were aired in or before 2013. Why an elected government turns a blind eye and does nothing to rectify such serious problems after so many years? Those who fail to prevent further oppression when they have the power to do so must share the guilt. This suggests collaboration between government and the child protection industry.

  2. Parents living in countries where government has the power to remove children from their families do not know how vulnerable they are until they are scrutinized by child protective services (CPS). Of course, it is often too late at that time. Parents are one phone call away from losing their children.

  3. Some may think that Lopez is paranoid and over-reacted with a CAS record on file. How could this record, in its surrounding circumstances, possibly harm her?

    Her concern is not completely unfounded. Child protection hearings are civil in nature. The level of proof is extremely low compared with that in criminal proceedings. There is no provision in most provincial child protection statutes obliging the accuser to bear the onus of proof. All CPS needs is to make an allegation. Parents have to prove them false. Paragraph [14] of British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services) v. G.(R.), 2001 BCPC 32 confirms the foregoing in no uncertain terms.

    Despite how old, how trivial and how irrelevant, previous dealings with CPS are often brought up in court to stigmatize parents, to mislead the judge and to lengthen CPS's position. A common CPS tactic is to call as many witnesses as they could call, bickering parents with trivial, and often irrelevant, matters and leave as little time for parents to present their case. Be mindful that courts reserve certain court time for each hearing. This tactic effectively lengthens the hearing so that removed children would stay in care longer. This is one way service providers create jobs for themselves.

  4. All child protection laws across Canada requires that suspected child abuse must be reported. Informants could report anonymously. This creates a witch hunt network often abused by various parties, most notably estranged spouse in child custody disputes, for purposes other than child protection.

    In our opinion, Lopez's first dentist who reported "oral neglect" to CAS does not appear to have reasonable ground. His or her suspicion of neglect is purely circumstantial, ie. relies on an inference to draw a conclusion of fact. God knows whether the dentist genuinely believes that there is neglect, to cover his/her behind because of the duty to report or for retaliation of Lopez's decision in switching dentist.

  5. CAS investigation of an allegation of "oral neglect" suggests that failure to provide dental care to children could result in scrutiny from CPS and possibly child removal. Dental care is expensive in Canada. Not every Canadian has dental insurance coverage. This implies that poorer parents are at a higher risk of attracting unwanted attention from CPS.

    This practice is potentially discriminatory and unfair to less affluent parents. Being poor does not necessarily mean that one is a bad parent. Public resources wasted to finance CPS could be used to assist families in need more effectively.

  6. CAS told those in Walter Perry Public School that the boy will be taken to meet his grandmother. It is noteworthy to mention that child removal often takes place in CPS friendly turfs like schools, day care centres and hospitals. To mitigate resistance, children are often told that they are being taken to meet some relatives or friends. Deception and coercion are ruses frequently used by the child protection industry not only in child removal process but also in propaganda, counseling, negotiation with parents to agree with their plans, mediations and custody litigations.

  7. CAS seized the opportunity to preach their accountability by keeping all records in the Lopez case while they refused to respond to media inquiry in Walter Perry Public School wrong pickup scandal. In our opinion, this double standard clearly suggests that service providers in the child protection industry are self-serving and hypocritical. Their top priority is to protect the industry, their job security and financial interests, not children.
  8. Is the CAS too powerful?
    Needless to say, beyond any doubt.
    Sara-Jane Wiens, mother of the baby girl who died in 2013 while in BC foster care, speaks to Global News about the lawsuit.
    On 25 March 2015, Sara-Jane Wiens, mother of the baby girl who died in 2013 while in BC foster care, speaks to Global News about her lawsuit against MCFD.

  9. The documentary "Powerful as God" (2011 Ontario) depicts CAS as powerful as God. There is no exaggeration that CAS and all its counterparts elsewhere are indeed more powerful than God. Armed with absolute power, little fear of repercussion, access to the deep pocket of taxpayers and muscle of the police who has no discretion but to follow instructions given by child protection workers, child protection agency is the most powerful and formidable bureaucracy in government. Under the pretext of child protection, child protection workers could easily destroy a family and bankrupt parents by dragging them into lengthy and lopsided custody litigation that could last for years. Be mindful that parents are often the only party in the courtroom who are not paid to be there.

    Furthermore, child protection workers could blatantly abuse their power without getting punished. This is confirmed by the J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216 in which the Supreme Court of B.C. found child protection workers liable for misfeasance in public office, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the standard of care first time in Canadian legal history. Yet, William Strickland (the social worker in question) got promoted to the position of Director of Operations (at the point of writing) instead of fired. How can a government establish accountability when perpetrators found guilty in a court of law are rewarded instead of punished?

  10. Apprehension of the wrong kindergarten boy in Walter Perry Public School reflects the quality of those employed by CAS and public schools. The fear and mental abuse suffered by the victim in this case is without a doubt inflicted by the sloppiness of service providers. In view of various forms of abuse and deaths in foster homes (the news footage on the right is just one of the many deaths in foster care), they support our belief that child protection agencies post the largest institutional threat to child safety. The Howard Smith case (a foster father in Scarborough, Ontario raping his underage foster child) is another CAS created atrocity in the 1970s.

    Every parent should shudder when people of this caliber are running such powerful agencies. You and your children could be the next victim if you do not act to stop them now.

  11. Despite public outcry of accountability, there is really little, if not none at all, in all child protection agencies worldwide. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. In view of the deep rooted structural corruption, there is no room for any meaningful reform.


The Ontario government is facing class action lawsuit from former Crown wards who were abused in the hands of the infamous CAS.
B.C. is not alone. Child removal is a global problem.
CPS traumatized a child during removal
CPS worker finds torturing baby funny! You can hear social worker laughing as they took the 20-month old baby from the loving grandparents, denied the opportunity to remain in a safe environment with family.

State-sponsored child removal in Canada is carried out by different provincial ministries and "non-profit" organizations called CAS. Commonalities and differences among child protection regimes can be found in a separate page titled "The Child Protection Industry". They are all funded by tax dollars and are given statutory power to remove children with the assistance of the police if child protection workers form an opinion that children are unsafe in the custody of their parents. In Ontario, civilian-run CAS are empowered to remove children. More information on CAS can be found in "Children's Aid Society - a mask should have been long unveiled".

Farces created by the child protection industry, like the wrong pickup in Walter Perry Public School, are at times good laugh stock. But when you think deeper, it is scary and disturbing. The incompetence and sloppiness of these self-acknowledged child welfare professionals are appalling. If a doctor performs an operation on a wrong patient, he will lose his licence to practice and would likely face criminal negligence charge. CPS perpetrators are seldom disciplined. Their wrongdoings are often whitewashed, covered up, ignored and at times even rewarded.

The child protection industry often vigorously deny any wrongdoings when the media airs a CPS-created atrocity. In Walter Perry Public School wrong pickup case, CAS alleged that the boy was "never in distress and was happy" in the entire process. In our opinion, this is a laughable lie. No one in the right mind would believe that a six-year old child will not be in distress and is happy to be grasped by the arm and forcibly placed in a car by a total stranger.

CPS workers often tell the court that children are not traumatized during removal. For example, child protection workers alleged in [189] of J.P. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services), 2013 BCSC 1403 (CanLII) that "removing children from their home and their custodial parents would not cause them upset ..." It appears that CPS workers really believe that they are incapable of harming children.

For the benefit of those who never witness child removal before, the video footage on the left (bottom) is a recording of a real removal in the U.S. Which part of the screaming and crying (started after 2:37 of the video time marker) of the apprehended child would give that impression that children are not in distress and are happy during the removal process? The screaming of the child was recorded even when the camera was so far away. This is an outright lie in broad daylight. Only idiots will believe in the industry.

CPS delusion

As shown in the video on the right, police is almost always called to escort child protection workers because of the oppressive nature of child removal. They provide the muscle to intimate parents and to beat them into submission. This diverts scared police resources away from fighting crimes and adds to the social costs of state-sponsored child removal.

State-sponsored child removal is oppressive, inhumane and barbaric. It was first instituted in form of residential schools in most English speaking nations, especially those with a colonial background, for political reasons and destruction of the Aboriginals as a sovereign power. Despite the federal government had publicly renounced residential schools in June 2008 as a tool of cultural assimilation, child removal and assimilation continue in form of modern child protection in which Aboriginal families remain the largest victim.

The child protection industry employs a very successful strategy of using enormous amount of public resources to oppress a very small percentage of the population. Shrewd propaganda, mutual support and seamless coordination among various service providers in the industry successfully use the noble cause of child protection for their financial benefits. As a result, most Canadians have little knowledge that modern child protection is nothing but a derivative of residential schools and a racket in which taxpayers are an indirect victim.

Lawsuits against CAS and other social costs to deal with the aftermath are costing taxpayers very dearly. Many lawsuits against CAS are of a non-child protection nature. For instance, former foster parents Derek and Frances Baars, who are Christians, alleged that their two young foster children were removed from their home in March of 2016, because they would not tell the kids that the Easter bunny was real due to their religious conviction. They have filed a court application against CAS for violating their charter rights based on their religious beliefs as members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. This is in essence a constitutional right litigation. Taxpayers could be spared of the financial burden in legal costs if there is no state-sponsored child removal.

Many believe that government is removing children for good reasons. Occasional foul-ups are results of underfunding, insufficient training, case overload. Government funded pseudo watchdogs, like the Representative for Children and Youth (RCY), keep writing reports in support of allocating more funding to child protection agencies. Enough is never enough. Too much money has been given to the wrong hands.

The root of the problem is the statutory power to remove child based on a bureaucratic opinion. The Child Family and Community Service Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 46 (CFCSA) and other provincial child protection statutes are made for the benefits of service providers. Requirement to report suspected child abuse, power to remove and privacy protection are common in these statutes. On the surface, they are needed to protect vulnerable children from their abusive parents. In reality, they provide spawning grounds for corruption and racketeering. State-sponsored child removal has no place in a civilized society.

Some may argue that child removal is necessary in more extreme cases of abuse. Yes, real child abuse is a crime and at times removal is necessary to ensure children's safety and well being. The Criminal Code and the Mental Health Act have already given authorities the power to remove children based on good evidence and due process in law. The threshold of removal in CFCSA is subject to the interpretation of child protection workers. CFCSA is completely redundant and opens government to corruption. Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they are ratified into law. Revoking child removal power per CFCSA and stop funding the racket is the only solution to end this fiasco and build a safer future for our children. Stop CPS before your loved ones fall prey.


[This page was conceptualized on 28 July 2017, published on 30 July 2017, last revised on 3 August 2017.]