MCFD Tactics

Their Objectives

Harmful Effects on Parents, Children & Society

beat parents into submission to agree with the child protection “findings” of social worker

•  bring the administration of justice into disrepute

•  render loss of public confidence in the government

•  induce massive conflict among family members

•  traumatize children and their families

a typical psychological warfare tactics using loved ones as pawn to beat parents into submission

set bad example to young children that authority may achieve their goals by such unorthodox means

•  to punish parents, especially those who stand defiant to MCFD’s unwanted, uninvited interventions and “services”

•  to seek re-litigation from different judge hoping to get a more favorable judgment

•  squander public resources

•  traumatize children and parents

•  bring the administration of justice into disrepute as the principle of res judicata is not respected or followed

•  blatant abuse of process and power

incorporate satisfactory completion of counseling as a supervision term and use MCFD-paid counselor to force parents to admit guilt before the counseling is considered satisfactory to MCFD director

to beat parents into admitting guilt to justify their action, otherwise the supervision term of satisfactory completion of counseling could never be accomplished and therefore no removal of “child protection concern” and family cannot be reunited

•  render counseling ineffective as all information discussed during counseling is open to MCFD

•  defeat the original intent of supervision order of restoring healthy parenthood

•  prolong separation of family and create undue hardship

seek supervision order to force parents to live apart

•  to create financial hardship to punish parents

•  to loosen bond between parents and create more favorable condition to use divide and conquer strategy

•  to create more family problems to justify their involvement and intervention

destroying parent’s financial resources that could otherwise be used for the well being of their children, such as saving for education or sending children to recreational activities

despite whether or not parents have such need, seek supervision term to compel parents to put children in day care centre specified by MCFD under the pretext that children are safer when they are exposed to the public

•  to inconvenience parents

•  to find more opportunities to create “evidence” to prove their “child protection” findings as negative comments on parents made by day care centre staffs (whose livelihood depends on MCFD’s funding) will be used against parents in court (hearsay evidence is allowed by Section 67 and 68 of CFCSA

•  to facilitate removal of children should they see fit of doing so

•  to create business opportunities for other beneficiaries in the "child protection" industry

•  squander public resources

•  render loss of public confidence in government and the child protection legal proceedings

obtain medical records of all family members from Medical Service Plan and Pharmcare without giving notice, let alone obtaining consent; this is usually done at the onset of a child protection investigation

fish for history of drugs, alcohol addiction and mental disorder, physical and sexual abuse

invading the privacy of each individual

notify school teachers, church staff, neighbors, ... etc. of their perception of child protection concerns and require them to keep an eye on the children in question

put more surveillance on the children to increase the chance of finding faults

parents will inevitably be perceived as problematic by school/church staff and other parents

compel parents to undergo psychological assessment by psychologist paid by MCFD (by way of a CFCSA Section 59 application)

fish for “expert” evidence to support their theory of unfit parent

degrading the dignity of parents

adjourn custody hearing using excuses such as unavailability of witness or reports when MCFD has a weak case

to prolong holding of children in foster homes to strengthen their theory that children are safe and well adjusted to foster life

suffer a longer pre-trial anxiety and prolonged separation between parents and children

exaggerate and/or misconstrue information obtained from any parties, including children (who are seldom allowed to testify in court since minors are considered incompetent witness in law)

•   to create “evidence” to justify removal of children; and/or

•   to provoke parents to act out of character to prove that they have an anger control problem

children unjustly taken away from their parents

use foster parents and supervised visitation workers to provoke parents during phone contacts and supervised visits

if children are returned under a supervision order, send after-hour social workers to camp outside the residence and their secret agents to stalk parents (see our MCFD Surveillance for more information)

to step up surveillance fishing for a breach of supervision term, hence justify another removal

putting families in continuous duress and reduce the chance of reconciliation

using children as pawn and financial aid as bait to force parents to divorce and/or to blackmail parents to admit guilt in court

to punish whoever social workers do not like under the pretext of risk elimination

contrary to family development as the Ministry’s title implies, this usually results in family destruction and increase the social costs to provide assistance to families destroyed

deliver their so-called “evidence”, such as psychological assessment in the last minute, usually the day before trial, or at times just minutes before hearing

to minimize the parent’s defense ability against harmful allegations; should parents seek adjournment to allow time to prepare a defence, MCFD wins as they will keep removed children longer; be mindful that the longer they keep the children in foster homes, the better they can justify that the children are well adopted to a new "safe" environment

prolong separation of family members

placing siblings in different foster homes, traumatize them and accuse parents of causing the mental harm

to taint parents as abusive and manipulative

causing substantial mental harm to young children

bringing police to residence, demanding entry without search warrant under the implied threat of child removal

to intimidate, demonstrate power and to fish for useful information

waste of public resources, disturb peace in residential neighborhood and render the neighbors to view the family in question with prejudice

threaten removed children by telling them that they will never see their parents again if they do not tell collaborating stories, sometimes this is done in conjunction of sweet carrots such as buying them a toy or a threat in a restaurant

to create “evidence” to justify removal and the application of various forms of custody

inducing fictions among family members and setting bad examples to young children to lie, especially when this is done by a person in a position of trust and authority

ask parents to find friends and relatives to be supervisors during visitation

to use this opportunity to fish for incriminating information and to destroy the reputation of parents in their social circle

seriously disturbing normal family life

apply for restraining order under Section 98 of CFCSA to prohibit parents (for a period of up to 6 months) from contacting their children, foster parents or the whistle blowers

•  to set up more traps for parents to fall into;

•  divert parent’s focus from getting their children back;

•  render parents guilty when trying to fulfill the natural human desire of seeing their children

creation of “crimes” and provoke parents do harm to society

tell court sheriff that parents are carrying weapon or other prohibited substances into the court house and ask them to search parents each time they attend court

•  to publicly humiliate parents and to demonstrate their power

abuse public resources

encourage each parent to retain separate legal counsels (if they still remain married and form a united front to fight their oppression) under the seemingly reasonable pretext that this would better serve the legal interests of each parent

•  to further complicate the legal process as more lawyers involved will likely result in a longer hearing and more scheduling difficult to set a court date sooner;

•  to exact more financial punishment if parents do not qualify for legal aid;

•  to weaken the unity of parents, a typical divide and conquer scheme

•  waste public resources as this will unnecessarily lengthen the legal process

•  induce fiction and conflict between spouses and enhance the chance of marriage breakdown

use parent’s past criminal history as justification to remove children, even when there is no complaint that child safety is jeopardized;

be mindful that Director v. M.P., 2005 BCPC 651 established child removal and granting of temporary custody order in favor of MCFD when there is no complaint, the child is not in immediate danger or that the removal is in the best interests of this child. The Court cited in this case: "All the Director need do is make out a prima facie case (an extremely low threshold of proof in law) that the child may be in need of protection, and then I can make one of the orders set out above that is appropriate in the circumstances."

There is no logical explanation other than creating more files to enhance job security. Be mindful that the behavior of these people are sometimes unfathomable to outsiders.

this almost amounts to a double jeopardy prohibited under Section 11(h) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allowing parents to be penalized again for the conviction of the same crimes will bring the administration of justice into disrepute (of course, MCFD's counsel will argue that different legal issues are litigated in CFCSA proceedings)

keep raising the price tag of returning children or changing the focus of their “child protection concern” if fails to fabricate enough evidence to prove a previous “concern”, for instance, if parents completed an anger control course with good remarks, social worker starts raising concerns on their parenting skills which has never been raised before

to justify the removal and subsequent custody or supervision order applications

•  waste public resources

•  prolong separation of family members

disallow meetings to be audio or video taped and at times, prohibit parents from bringing a third party to attend meetings using privacy or confidentiality as excuse

prevent parents to get tangible evidence or witness to prove what had transpired in the meetings so that they can change what had been discussed and agreed to their likings

•  prohibit parents of their rights

•  loss of confidence of government

arbitrarily cancel phone and/or visitation access of removed children using invalid excuses such as recording children during visitation, permitting children to conduct dangerous activities such as biking riding, ... etc. (see real documented supervised visit cases in the Article and Video Archives); be mindful that no provision in CFCSA authorizes social workers to do this

[added on April 14, 2008]

•  to beat parents into submission;

•  to deter parents and children from unveiling the true color of various key players/beneficiaries in the "child protection" industry;

•  to induce conflicts among family members to blame one another for causing the loss of opportunity of seeing their children and therefore enhance MCFD's chance of winning custody by breaking the family through a classic divide and conquer tactic;

•  to provoke parents into anger to prove social worker's child safety concerns.

•  unreasonably prohibit parents of their rights

•  loss of confidence of government

seek long hearing period when scheduling hearing date, alleging that MCFD will call a large number of "witnesses" and "evidence" (be mindful that the larger number of days estimated in the hearing, the more difficult to get a court date sooner)

[added on April 15, 2008]

•  to schedule a hearing date as remote as possible to prolong the child holding period;

•  allow more time to fabricate "evidence" and to create more "witnesses" (such as supervised visitation workers who are paid by the ministry and take notes while parents see their children) in their favour;

•  to wear and tear parents;

•  to allow more opportunities to find faults and to destroy parent's finance (as they will likely lose their job by taking time off work to see their children);

•  to induce parents to enter into consent order or agree to mediation or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms using earlier settlement as bait, be mindful that these alternative mechanisms are as lopsided as the court hearings

• against the guiding principle [2(g)] of CFCSA obliging decisions relating to children should be made and implemented in a timely manner
• prolong separation of family members and increase the chance of destroying families as parents are under duress and start blaming each other for causing the child removal

under the pretext of supervised visitation worker availability, keep changing supervised visit time and day after parents obtained consent from their employer to take time off work on certain day of the week to see their children

[added on April 16, 2008]

•  to inconvenience parents and to demonstrate their power to play god;

•  to increase the chance of getting parents fired from their employment for the purpose of destroying their finance;

•  if parents fail to attend supervised visits of their children due to the need of going to work, it will be used as "evidence" in court alleging that parents do not care about their children

•   creating more social problems to justify the need of "social work"

•   increasing hardship to parents

ask police and Crown counsel to lay criminal charge(s) on parents (usually uttering death threat, violence or sexual assault related charges) based on false allegations or weak evidence, be mindful that most police forces and RCMP detachments have a special squad assigned to work with social workers in apprehending children and to escort them whenever requested, there is strong "rapport" between these two law enforcers; flimsy charges are usually stayed before criminal trial but long after the Section 35 presentation hearing

[added on April 17, 2008]

•  to intimidate parents;

•  to lend support in custody or supervision application as most judges will make a more cautious decision (erring on the side of caution is frequently found in judgments) if there are outstanding criminal charges;

•  to obtain bail conditions such as no contact with children, no approach of residence or foster home that social workers could not obtain otherwise

•  to further destroy the parent's reputation as most people view laying of criminal charges very negatively

•  to exact more financial punishment as parents probably will need to retain counsel to deal with these criminal matters (unless they qualify for legal aid)

•  to divert parent's resources and to distract their focus in dealing with the child protection litigation

• against natural justice and bring the administration of justice into disrepute
• increase hardship to parents

If parents belong to any professional group, "child protection concerns" will soon be brought up to the attention of the professional governing body. The intent is to destroy parent's good standing by raising doubt on their "questionable" character, mental stability, sexual immorality involving young children, anger control ability and addiction to harmful substance, ... etc.

[added on April 18, 2008]

•  to open multiple front battlefield for parents to fight if a professional conduct hearing is induced;

•  to add weight in their custody or supervision order application if the governing body decides to suspend parent's professional credential;

•  to destroy parent's reputation, peer support and finance;

•  to undermine the good character reference parents may manage to find

•  act outside MCFD's child protection mandate;

•  defamation without fear of repercussion as MCFD will indemnify (with tax dollars) all work related lawsuits of its employees (such indemnity will render the establishment of accountability extremely difficult)

brainwash removed children in foster homes to believe that their parents are bad and/or to indoctrinate them to give incriminating statements against their parents

[added on May 14, 2008]

•  to fabricate evidence to support their custody or supervision order applications in court;

•  to "prepare" removed children for adoption as children are easier to handle in foster homes and homes of their adopted parents if they believe that their natural parents are bad people to go back to;

•  if the situation permits, to provide evidence for the Crown to lay criminal charge(s) on parents, which will lend substantial support to MCFD in child protecting hearings (usually charges are laid shortly before child protection hearings; if the criminal case is weak, the Crown will either stay the proceedings after the child protecting hearing is over or go to trial for the purpose of punishing parents)

•  destroying healthy relationship between parents and children;

•  moral corruption as this may destroy families which MCFD is supposed to help;

•  render the administration of justice into disrepute

team up other social workers unrelated to the case and their supervisors to show up in court, especially when they have a weak case or are about to lose in a hearing

[added on May 14, 2008]

•  to provide "moral" support to one another;

•  to deliver subtle signal to the trial judge that MCFD finds it imperative to be successful in this litigation (despite that not all judges are influenced by this tactic)

•  waste of tax dollars as these government employees could have used their time more productively elsewhere;

•  misleading to the public as social workers always allege that they have a big work load to justify higher pay and more staff while they waste their time in attending court cases in which they are not involved

during the hearing, the MCFD's counsel will take up a good portion (60% to 70%) of the time in examining witnesses, repeatedly elaborate on the theory that social workers dream up and leave little time to the counsel of parents to cross examine and calling their own witnesses

[added on May 21, 2008]

•  to get more time to indoctrinate the judge (an application of the saying "tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth");

•  to maximize the chance of winning in court

•  against natural justice

•  unnecessarily prolong hearing, hence wasting expensive court time and tax dollars

social workers search parents and their removed children before and after supervised access and prohibit or confiscate any materials (such as tape recorder, camcorder, cell phone, phone cards, religious materials) they disallow; parents who fail to comply will not be allowed to see their children

[added on July 3, 2008]

•  to intimidate parents and beat them to recognize their undue authority (be mindful that no provision in CFCSA allows them to do this, however with the authority to remove children at will, they usually get what they want in reality with no fear of punishment whatsoever);

•  to fish for information that could be used to support their theory in court

•  to prevent communication of the free will of removed children, usually their desire to come home and the maltreatment and abuse in foster homes, to the outside world

•  gross invasion of privacy

•  contravening Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom which states that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

supervised visits of removed children are arbitrarily cancelled without reason or notice, especially after a long separation or before special events such as birthdays and Christmas; parents do not know that they cannot see their children until they arrive at the meeting place, and wait for a long time before are told that they have already been notified of the cancellation (of course, such cancellation notice has never been given in many cases)

removed children are brought to the usual meeting place and are told that their parents do not show up, implying that they do not care about them or have abandoned them (of course, parents are never notified of such visitation)

[added on July 17, 2008, revised on October 10, 2008]

•  to provoke parents into anger to prove their "abusive parent" theory;

•   to punish parents and to make them shed tears (we have seen social workers smiled when parents wept; according to these parents, it is the only time that they have seen their social workers smile during the entire course of their fateful encounter);

•  to demonstrate that they have the power and are in charge

•  to create fear to parents that they will not see their children again and force them to admit guilt of child abuse

•  to destroy the family tie and induce doubt and hatred between parents and children

•  disrespect the spirit in law that parents should be given reasonable access

•  traumatize the very children that they are supposed to protect

"Child protection" social workers seldom use sworn affidavits in CFCSA proceedings. Generally, they give testimonies in court, which is a much more time-consuming alternative. Furthermore, they often present useless and irrelevant information to overload trial judges and to occupy expensive court time.

[added on January 6, 2009]

•  to lengthen the hearing and exact more financial punishment on parents if they do not qualify for legal aid (be mindful that lawyers charge by the hour in this type of case);

•  to make their case seemingly substantiated by many "facts" and "history of problem";

•  to take up more court time so as to minimize the amount of time available for parents to either cross examine MCFD's witnesses or to present their case

•  render the legal process unfair and biased

•  waste tax dollars

Most "child protection" social workers do not allow interviews and meetings be recorded (indeed we have not come across any who do). If parents insist, they will terminate the meeting and accuse parents of not cooperating with their investigation. Be mindful that recording a meeting or phone conversation in which the recording party is a party of the meeting or conversation, even if done covertly, is not illegal.

[added on January 6, 2009]

•  to allow latitude to change their position, allegations or agreement as they please in the future;

•  to avoid getting caught by tangible evidence of their wrongdoings;

•  to demonstrate that they are in charge

•  loss of trust and confidence on both MCFD's operation and the integrity of its employees (be mindful that there is no legitimate reason to disallow recording if they act above board and on good faith);

•  waste expensive court time to litigate discrepancies of what had transpired (which could be prevented if interviews and meetings are recorded), of course, judges seldom believe parents in case of factual discrepancy

Schools, especially public schools, are the hunting ground of new cases for "child protection" social workers where unsuspecting young children are intimidated, interrogated and removed by surprise. Unlike the second YouTube video archived on this page, social workers do not need consent from parents or from court before they can legally interrogate and remove children from school in British Columbia.

[added on January 15, 2009]

•  to obtain information in a social worker friendly environment as school teachers and principals are willing partners of the "child protection" industry and parents are usually absent, hence no resistance whatsoever

•  be able to misconstrue or fabricate whatever information they see fit without witness testifying the contrary

•  be able to threaten children to collaborate and to provide incriminating against their parents

•  create fear to children in their learning environment that could haunt them for a very long time;

•  bring the administration of justice into disrepute as "evidence" collected in such manner is grossly unfair and improper

If children placed in foster care run back to their parents, MCFD maintains that the ministry is still the legal guardian, hence preventing the child in question from registering in a school to continue their education.

•  to create excuse to justify that the child has been prevented from receiving proper education after parents regain de facto custody, despite the fact that MCFD is the real cause of preventing the child from receiving education

•  to exact financial punishment on parents as they now need either to hire babysitter or to quit working to look after the child at home

•  to build incentive for parents to negotiate with MCFD if they want their child to go back to school again

•  create undue hardship to both children and parents;

•  prevent children from receiving proper education

Compel young children to go to "psychological counseling" by shrinks paid by MCFD. Use sand play or picture drawing to fabricate evidence against parents. We came across incidents in which a child was told to draw a picture of his family. Before the child has a chance to draw his father, the picture was taken away by the shrink alleging time is up. The missing of father in the picture was later misconstrued as the child hating father due to abuse in the shrink report.

•  to fabricate evidence of "abuse" using bogus science and inappropriate techniques

•  to induce doubt, hatred and mistrust between parents and children

• abuse of resources intended to help children in need
• destroy families

threaten to place removed siblings in different foster homes to blackmail parents to consent to supervision or custody order in court

[added on February 13, 2009]

•  to beat parents into submission by the threat of inflicting harm to their children

•  to discourage parents to seek justice in courts

•  loss of confidence and trust in government;

•  loss faith in MCFD as this directly contravenes Section 71(2)(b) of CFCSA, which states that:

insist to cross examine expert witnesses who provide written reports or affidavits in favor of parents and refuse to pay for the costs

[added on February 13, 2009]

•  use costs as a prohibitive factor to deter or prevent parents from using favorable evidence

•  use the failure to provide expert witnesses for cross examination to undermine the credibility of parents

•  to exact financial punishment on parents

•  despite the fact that litigants have the right to cross examine witnesses, this legal tactic effectively prevent parents from getting a fair trial as they may only have expert opinions in their defence

•  prevent courts from hearing all relevant information in making child protection decisions

•  destroy families

if parents agree to remove life support equipment of their child due to the unlikelihood of recovery from injury or disease based on sound medical advice, social workers will accuse them of abandoning their child and use this as a reason of removal, this is particularly traumatic if the child recovers

[added on March 30, 2009]

to justify child removal by tainting parents as irresponsible and uncaring

•  deprive the child in question of parental love and care when it is most needed to enhance the possibility and the speed of recovery

•  unnecessarily increase financial burden to society for the legal process and the support services

•  destroy families

tell removed children that they will get larger allowances, birthday parties, a trip to Disneyland or toys if they say that they had been abused by their parents or that they do not want to see their parents anymore; or alternatively, deny removed children the aforesaid goodies if they refuse to collaborate

[added on July 6, 2009, revised on February 3, 2010]

•  using the gullibility of children to fabricate evidence supporting child removal, custody or other applications

•  build a false positive foster care impression in the naive mind of removed children

•  obstruction of justice

•  abuse tax dollars in buying vacation for removed children and their caretakers if they honor their commitment

•  in the alternative, bring false hope to removed children (an accusation social workers often make on parents when they tell their children that they will come home soon during supervised visits) if such promise is bogus

get another judge to hear their application after a parent-sympathetic judge has seized the case (or the file), at the point of writing, we have come across 2 cases in which MCFD managed to get a different judge to hear their application after a judge has seized the file

[added on July 7, 2009]

shop for the right judge to maximize the likelihood of getting a favorable court decision

•  disturbance and wrongful interference of a judicial practice instituted for a good reason

•  loss of public confidence on government and judiciary

•  encourage the use of undue government power to influence a supposedly independent judiciary

tell removed children that their parents have given them up and sent them to MCFD and prohibit parents to tell their children the truth during supervised visits, using suspension of visitation as retaliatory means

[added on October 5, 2009]

•  induce conflict between parents and children attempting to break their bond

•  provoke parents to act out of character or to break the absurd rules unilaterally imposed to justify other oppressive actions

•  betray the MCFD's mandate to help families in need

•  create undue hardship and trauma to parents and children

•  loss of confidence in government as lies are used by bureaucrats to justify their jobs

return children to their parents shortly before trial and re-remove them later, this tactic is often used when MCFD has a weak case or if parents dare to disagree with MCFD's decisions

[added on October 5, 2009]

•  to avoid losing a court case that could become a precedent in favour of parents

•  to put parents back on a long trial schedule after parents have waited a long time for a trial and suffered a long separation with their beloved children

•  to make parents and children losing hope and give up the fight

•  abuse of statutory authority to remove children

•  further traumatize children and families inhumanely

unilaterally impose more harsh and unacceptable terms after mediation agreement is signed and warn parents that there will be consequences if they dare to take their case back to the mediator, court or the media

[added on October 5, 2009]

alternatively, omit agreed material terms favorable to parents in a supervision order or mediation agreement when presented to court for formalization

[added on December 25, 2010]

•  to make parents unable to satisfy the mediation agreement, for example, demanding single parents to stay home most of the time without providing financial assistance hence destroying their livelihood

•  create excuse to accuse parents for failing to live up to mediation agreement

•  to justify removal or to seek a more permanent custody order

•  create undue hardship to families

•  abuse of authority

without the knowledge and consent from natural parents, assign a lawyer to children when they reach 12-year old at taxpayer expense, alleging that children are entitled to independent legal representation

[added on December 6, 2009]

• induce more stakeholders in the legal process to create inefficiency, complications and more difficulty in scheduling hearings, hence prolonging child holding period in foster care
• work in concert with the child's lawyer, who represents the child in court, so that allegations of abuse, the child's alleged unwillingness to go home and other incriminating "evidence" from children against their parents will appear more objective and reasonable

•  waste of tax dollars

•  destroy families by separating children from their parents

propose a voluntary agreement that calls for removal of children, forcibly remove them when parents refuse to sign

used in the Removal of a 9-Year Old Autistic Girl in Abbotsford, British Columbia (16 June 2011)

[added on 7 August 2011]

• betray the legislative intent of Section 30(1)(b) of CFCSA
• abuse of authority and public resources to benefit the child protection industry

when wrongdoings, corruption or torts are discovered, place different "child protection" workers in charge of the file

this worker switching tactic was used in the David and Christina Harrison case aired by Randy Wallace of Fox 26 News Houston

[added on 10 August 2011]

• to avoid perpetrators being questioned in court that could embarrass the government, when cross-examined on sensitive issues, new "child protection" workers often respond by saying that "I am new to the case" or "I don't have access to the previous file".
• to minimize the risk of the perpetrating "child protection" workers being held responsible for their crimes against the people whom they call clients

• contribute to the corruption of government and the lack of accountability
• obstruction of justice

overwhelm the legal counsel of parents with fax, e-mail, phone calls, correspondence, applications, affidavits, notice of motion

[added on 11 August 2011]

• exact more financial punishment on parents as most lawyers bill their clients by the hour, or frustrate and overburden their pro bono lawyers to quit
• deprive parents' support, professional assistance to gain an upper hand and/or to further lengthen the legal process allegedly a lack of legal counsel

• waste of public resources
• abuse of authority and public trust

with or without the consent and knowledge of parents, forcibly drug some removed children with powerful psychotropic drugs, often with strong negative side effects

used in:

1. the Removal of a 9-Year Old Autistic Girl in Abbotsford, British Columbia (16 June 2011)
2. the David and Christina Harrison case aired by Randy Wallace of Fox 26 News Houston

[added on 11 August 2011]

• keep removed children who desire to go home under control
• beat parents into submission by torturing their children under the pretext of medical care
• portray an image that medical care is given to children in care
• create more die-hard special interests using tax dollars

• crimes against humanity
• abuse of authority and public resources

use community health nurses to hunt for unsuspecting and credulous single-mom targets (young teenage single mothers without family or financial support are the prime targets), watch for an excessive number of non-health related questions asked in different ways

[added on 21 November 2012]

• use service providers seemingly unrelated to child protection to extend their witch-hunt network
• create more cases and demand of child protection service providers

• create undue distress to mothers who just gave birth
• transfer public financial resources to the hands of service providers instead of parents with children in need