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
Media
  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)
social worker
(Hover your mouse over the cartoon above.)

Myths and Reality

To those who have no first hand experience with service providers in the "child protection" industry or are new to being scrutinized by them, there are many beliefs based on common sense, intuition, expectations of a responsible government, our social and moral values. Many of these beliefs, hereinafter known as myths (or illusions) on this page, are inaccurate, unreal or wrong.

The purposes of this page are:

  1. to shed a different insight from those who had received "service" before;
  2. to help oppressed parents to make informed decisions;
  3. to correct these wrong beliefs; and
  4. to advance understanding of how service providers function in the "child protection" industry.

Experience and evidence supporting our views are derived from the legal and socio-political environment surrounding "child protection" activities in British Columbia, Canada. Readers outside British Columbia are cautioned that reality discussed herein may be different or inapplicable in their local areas. Furthermore, change in law could affect the validity of some of our views.

Abbreviations:

MCFD = the Ministry of Children and Family Development
CFCSA = the Child, Family and Community Service Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 46
CFCSR = the Child, Family and Community Service Regulation
CPSW = child protection social workers employed by MCFD

Myths

Please click the myths below to read our view of reality and rate selected items. Your opinion is important to us. Please do NOT rate more than once on each item.

Note that not all myths, but only those in purple, below have a rating option.

  1. Parents are given sufficient rights when scrutinized by CPSW.
  2. Custody of one's own children is enshrined by constitution in Canada.
  3. Legal rights enshrined in Section 7 to Section 14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply in child protection hearings.
  4. MCFD bears the onus of proof in all legal proceedings.
  5. Parents will be given the benefit of a doubt in child protection legal proceedings.
  6. Physical discipline (or corporal punishment) of children is illegal in Canada.
  7. There must be serious and legitimate child protection concerns when MCFD removes children from their parents.
  8. Problems and deficiencies in "child protection" are due to insufficient resources.
  9. Children are necessarily safer in foster homes, known safe places.
  10. Removal of children is the last resort.
  11. I have no kid or my children are all over 19 years of age. I have no concern of what MCFD does.
  12. Court provides fair and prompt adjudication based on good evidence.
  13. Power to remove children is imperative in protecting them.
  14. Children have rights protected by CFCSA, such as the right to attend the planning meeting for their care and to bring adult advocates of their choosing to speak on their behalf. Their wishes are respected and considered.
  15. MCFD is a respectable government ministry charged with the noble mandate of protecting children. CPSW will not conduct illegal surveillance on their clients.
  16. Police officers have their discretion when asked to assist CPSW in removing children.
  17. Parents are presumed innocent until proven guilty in child protection hearings.
  18. CPSW are governed by a professional body and are abide by the code of ethics and standard of practice of the regulatory body.
  19. Visitations of removed children are arranged at the convenience of parents outside their working hours.
  20. Oppression and abuse of authority, especially to the magnitude described herein, are impossible in a free and democratic nation.
  21. There are sufficient check and balance (such as the complaint resolution process) to curb abuse of power.
  22. CPSW dare not to abuse their statutory power as they can be held liable personally.
  23. Parents will be given plenty of time to review allegations, reports and assessment against them.
  24. Parents are treated with respect and will not be coerced to admit guilt or allegations.
  25. The Office of the Representative for Children and Youth (RCY) employs child advocates who have the authority to intervene if MCFD staff are believed to be acting inappropriately or contrary to the rights and interests of the child.
  26. Character references help after removal of your children.
  27. Lawyers representing parents can protect parental rights and ensure prompt return of children if there is no just cause.
  28. MCFD always follows guiding principles set forth in CFCSA.
  29. Children will be assessed medically and psychologically on a timely basis.
  30. MCFD enriches and develops families.
  31. CPSW will respect the wishes and preferences of parents on the upbringing of children.
  32. MCFD looks after the needs, interests, and development of children that have been taken into care.
  33. CPSW are paid to help families.

judge
Myths & Reality

(Hover your mouse to the cartoons)
cop
foster parents baby cries visitation worker
counselor lawyer social worker

Remarks

Protecting Canadian Children in Ontario, Canada call to action against Children Aid Society corruption

Myths and apathy of the public largely contribute to the cancerous growth of the "child protection" industry perverted by special interests. They employ a simple but very successful strategy of using huge public resources to oppress a very small percentage of the population, mostly poor marginalized people.

Parents with children under age 19 are not aware how vulnerable they are until it is too late. Lack of accountability and transparency, excessive government fundings, lopsided law, insufficient check and balance create conditions to flourish an unprecedented corruption so advanced that there is no head to cut off. There may be some good service providers genuinely working to protect children. However, their presence is insufficient to curb corruption as they have little control over the system. If one betrays the principle of the accrual of money and power, the others betray and destroy him. Whistle-blowing CPSW who refused to go with the flow got fired. Politicians (like Nancy Schaefer) who acted on conscience and advocated changing laws to root out this corruption were sacked by their party boss. Even judges (notably Andree Ruffo) making decisions in favor of children and openly spoke about the flaws in "child protection" were dismissed. What you see is the darkest side of human weakness and perhaps the biggest scandal in the Western free and democratic world.

The current "child protection" apparatus is so corrupt that it is irreparable without revoking the general power to remove children from their parents. Such oppressive and absolute power has no place in a free and democratic society. It is counter productive in genuine child protection work and is an abnormal product of uncontrolled bureaucratic government growth. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is meaningless as long as government has the power to remove children from the homes of its citizens. As the infamous history of Canadian Indian residential school system has demonstrated, this power can be used to target any person or group of people based on their:

Furthermore, there are compelling reasons to believe that modern "child protection" is a derivative of the infamous Canadian Indian residential school regime. Please browse our Native Indians & MCFD page for more details.

In selling his unpopular HST in August 2009, Premier Gordon Campbell alleged that this tax is needed to provide social services that are fundamental to a "high quality of life". Those who have no child or whose children are over 19 years of age are also affected by the high taxes levied to pay special interests in the "child protection" industry and to deal with other social problems created by state-sponsored child removal. The joint major study released by the Representative for Children and Youth and the Provincial Health Officer on February 23, 2009 supports the following problems:

  1. higher crime rate [41.2% of children (12-17) in care appear in youth court (Table 1 of the joint study ) versus 6.4% of general population, be mindful that children under the age of 12 cannot be charged of criminal offence in Canada];
  2. 24.5% of children in care graduate versus 74.4% of general population (Table 5 of this joint study);
  3. perpetual poverty [88.6% of children in care receive income assistance by the age of 19 versus 29.5% of general population (Table 7 of the joint study)];
  4. homelessness (frequent consequence of the aforesaid problems).

Safety and protection are appealing terms in politics and in the court of law. People see themselves as beneficiaries and seldom resist government policies and measures allegedly implemented for these purposes. Safety and protection become ideal pretexts to launch activities that may carry different agenda and generate opposite results. Government prescribed family therapy, state-sponsored child removal and the controversial long-gun firearm registry are the best examples to demonstrate the foregoing.

We are not trying to undermine the importance of safety and protection of vulnerable groups. All government policies and measures that help enhance safety and protection must genuinely serve the alleged objectives in a cost efficient manner and meet the approval of the intended beneficiaries without violating their legal and natural rights. Professor Stephen Baskerville said in the Family Preservation Festival 2008 (Washington, DC), "If you touch my children, you answer to me." Parents, are you ready to rise, abate this oppressive power and protect your children from the largest institutional risk of child safety?


           


[This page was added on 12 September 2010, last revised 23 March 2015.]