An Eyewitness Account of Supervised Visit in Metrotown, Burnaby

Father and son ate before recreational activities

At the request of the oppressed parents to witness an expected set up, I attended the supervised visit at about 4:15 p.m. on October 18, 2006. The attached photos were taken during this visit that took place near the fireplace in the food court of Metrotown in Burnaby.

The social worker was supposed to bring the kidnaped boy to see his parents at 3:30 p.m. She did not show up until 4:05 p.m. (a time loss amounting to 19.4% in the 3-hour visit).

The father, 76 years of age, carried his son’s heavy beloved toys all the way to the food court. He bought him food with his limited retirement income and enjoyed the most precious moment of his week.

After the meal, the boy started riding on his toy in the food court and playing with his remote control car toy brought by his father. I witnessed no dangerous activities that draw the attention of the mall security or the watchful visitation worker (later told by the parents that her name is Monique Wong). According to the father, Ms. Wong commented that his toys are nice and beautiful and it is too bad that the rain prevented them from playing in the park. She played and followed the boy when he paddled in the food court making no implication whatsoever that the boy was doing something dangerous.

The mother joined the visit at about 5:10 p.m. after work. I left shortly after she arrived, assuming that everything was under control.

At about 5:30 p.m., I incidentally ran into the mother who was sitting outside Toys 'r' Us waiting for the father and son who were shopping for some toys inside. I briefly said hello and left. At 5:45 p.m., the mother called me and said that another visitation worker (a Hispanic man) confronted the father in Toys 'r' Us alleging that allowing the boy to ride on his car and playing remote controlled toy in the food court are dangerous activities and his visitation right is immediately suspended. The social workers were hesitant to let the crying boy said goodbye to his father. According to the parents, this boy cried every time before going back to foster home. While there is no evidence suggesting that the father is dangerous and may harm the child, the fact that this boy was harmed emotionally during the entire course of removal is clear.

Hover your mouse to pause the slide show and to view photo description.

The parents briefed me the full story in tears in a nearby Chinese restaurant. The boy has been removed from his family 21 months ago because his father has a criminal record of a sexual nature before the boy was born. He served his time and yet the ministry considers him a dangerous father to his own children. Note that there was no incident of child abuse whatsoever when the boy was removed but a run in between the father and the day care centre staff who blew the whistle that led to the removal.

The ministry compelled the father to psychiatric assessment. The assessment is in his favor. But this assessment is now well hidden and never brought to court. The ministry’s counsel is seeking adjournment every time the parents attempt to fix a date for custody hearing under the pretext that the father’s daughter (who accused him of sexual assault) has not found a lawyer to represent her in the fight for the custody. The ministry seeks a 10-day trial which will probably be fixed 2 years in the future. Of course, the boy is still held hostage interim. The social worker is now doing everything possible to provoke the father and try to taint him with anger control problem. The ministry is now compelling him to do another psychologic assessment on anger control.

The incident mentioned herein is an usual tactic social workers used. In my own case, my phone and visitation access were suspended by our social worker because I spoke to my children in Chinese. This right is explicitly allowed in the Children, Family and Community Service Act. Lawless social workers do not obey even the very Act that governs their activities for the purpose of provoking parents to act inappropriately. It is probably under a similar provoking circumstance that the American social parasite got killed by an oppressed mother in Kentucky who chose to fight back, unfortunately in a very wrong way.

This very respectable visitation worker Monique Wong has an impressive credential. The ministry praised her for risking her life to save a child in her line of duty. According to the attached newspaper clipping provided by the mother, Ms. Wong is on student visa while working for the ministry. Unless she has obtained a work permit, she is not allowed to work in Canada. It will be interesting to find out whether or not she has working privilege while working for the ministry.

Many of my supporters and concerned associates ask me what they can do for us. I ask two favors for now. Pray for us (if you share the same Christian faith) and tell people about this true stories of ministry-created trauma. Other than these, there is really nothing anyone could do to help oppressed parents. Most of these stories sound very absurd and implausible. Frankly, if I have not encountered this oppression myself in the last two years, I will not believe half of what I wrote. It is hard to image that these state-sponsored crimes against humanity are happening on a daily basis in 21st century Canada.

Instead of indulging ourselves in the pride of legalizing same-sex marriage, democracy, human rights and civil liberty, Canadians should seriously consider the value of the very expensive, grossly inefficient and usually counter productive activities of these Gestapo-like social workers. Ironically and contrary to their mandate of child protection, nobody posts a larger risk to children in this province than social workers. If Canadians continue to turn a blind eye to ministry-created tragedies and trauma or naively believe that social workers are genuinely working to the best interest of children, the child protection apparatus will not only lose its value but will become a tool of oppression by various authorities.

If you decide to pass on my message to other, be advised that it may attract unwanted attention from the authorities. The parents involved in this case told me yesterday that they have hearsay information that parents have been arrested by the police for sending e-mails speaking against the ministry. In my humble opinion, unless their e-mails contain messages advocating hatred, commission of crimes, false accusations that amount to libel, I still trust that there is freedom of speech in this country.

           

           

[This page was added on 30 January 2009, last revised on 23 January 2013.]