|
"Powerful as God" "Powerful as God" is a video documentary made in 2011 on the Children's Aid Societies in Ontario, Canada.
|
|
PAPA People Assisting Parents Association © 2007 |
| Home |
Purposes & Services |
FAQ |
Archives & Links |
e Donation & Survey |
Contact Us |
|
Members Only |
MCFD Tactics |
Forum & Testimonies |
Parent Support |
Kid's Zone |
On-Line Services |
|
|
|
|
Preface
On 9 March 2016, Canada Number One Living published an article titled "Children's Aid Society - a mask should have been long unveiled" (加拿大儿童保护协会——一副早该被撕碎的假面) in Chinese at Torpeople.com.
The main body of this web page is the English translation of the aforesaid article. Our comments are at the end of this page.
Children's Aid Society - a mask should have been long unveiled
One day, a baby in the house accidentally bumped the head. The young mother took the baby to the hospital for examination. She was very nervous and kept saying, “This is an accident. I did not abuse my baby. You will not be reported to the CAS (Children's Aid Society, hereinafter known as CAS) me?”
This scenario occurred every day in Canada. In the minds of parents, CAS has become a symbol of "the child removal, family destruction".
CAS was established in 1985. The original intent of establishing such organization is to protect children and to enhance child welfare.
If there is a report of corporal punishment on a child, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, domestic dispute, CAS is obliged to investigate. Child protection workers have the power to remove children from their family and place them elsewhere as they see fit. CAS should be children's guardian angel. However, in the last few decades, the former angel is gradually corrupted by money and power.
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne openly condemned CAS last December (of 2015). She said that she would prefer "blowing up" this "dilapidated" CAS regime to seeing more families destroyed.
No one showed any concern about this news. The reason is simple: the Premier’s statement was overshadowed by ISIS. People are more afraid of terrorists, and no one believes that CAS would be so horrifying. After the author read child protection court cases, government reports, and news reports, the puzzles add up to show the tip of an iceberg of problems created by the huge bureaucracy.
Not a government welfare agency
We want to discuss the basic nature of CAS. A very simple question: is CAS a public welfare organization?
In Ontario, there are 47 CAS agencies located in Toronto, London and Waterloo. In 2015, these agencies received government funding totaling 1.5 billion Canadian dollars (which exceeds the police budget by 500 million).
People wrongly believe that CAS is set up and run by the government.
CAS is indeed a national private enterprise. It resembles brand names like McDonald's and KFC. CAS is run by local directors all over the country. Although they are all under the CAS banner, there is no affiliation among them.
Quality of CAS employees varies. A former CAS employee had been accused of sexual assault. The court required the employee to turn himself in. However, he fled the next day.
But this story has been quickly forgotten by the public. Why is CAS formidable?
- It has tremendous power more than that of judiciary.
- It has very close relationship with the government and is often protected by the police and government.
Even major errors will not be prosecuted
Homeschooling could be a reason of child removal.
A 2012 survey conducted by a third party indicated that only 66% of the CAS cases and arrest met the requirements set forth in the "Child and Family Services Act". This suggests that the remaining 34% cases of arrest is illegal.
Consequently, many families will resist and go to court to argue against CAS allegations. At that time, they will see the full horror of CAS.
Court generally views that when CAS employees act in good faith, they are immune if they make wrong decisions. Countless CAS wrongdoings are not punished under good faith protection.
So how to determine whether CAS employees are acting in good faith? This will be further elaborated later in this article.
Immunization from the Privacy Act
CAS often acts above law. Another scary aspect is the intrusion of privacy.
Ontario has two privacy laws, "Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act" (hereinafter known as FIPPA) and the "Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act" (hereinafter known as MFIPPA).
These two regulations stipulate what documents must be made public or to remain sealed. It brought to the attention of the author when reading the manual of CAS that both FIPPA and MFIPPA have no power over CAS in Ontario. (Ontario's 47 CASs are not governed by FIPPA and MFIPPA).
What does this mean? This means that if there are miscarriages of justice and CAS-created atrocities, the judiciary cannot investigate because CAS is not governed under privacy acts.
On the other hand, CAS could intrude the privacy of any family. They have access to the medical history of all family members and their internet browsing history.
Internal documents leaked
Paper, however cannot contain fire. In 2013, the self-serving motive of CAS is finally exposed.
On March 14, 2013, an internal memo from a senior CAS staff was leaked. In the memo, a senior management staff notified staff members not to rush closing child protection files, because that would lead to a reduction of government funding.
What does this mean?
CAS is a well-funded organization. Frontline staff annual salary is between $60,000 to $70,000. Media has reported that some senior CAS employees drive luxurious cars and live in expensive mansions. CAS has various sources of funding: donations private individuals and charitable foundations. However, their largest source of funding is from the government, which means that CAS is largely financed by tax dollars.
Government funding is determined by the number of children in care.
For example: if CAS alleged child abuse at home, removed the child. The child is under the care of CAS. If the child was eventually returned to the parents or adoption by another family, then the case is closed.
The government funds CAS in direct proportion to the number of children removed. In other words, the more children removed, the more government funding CAS will get. Of course, CAS certainly does not want child protection files closed.
Many kind-hearted families who want to adopt removed children met resistance from CAS. CAS finds various excuses to delay and deny adoption. Once a child is adopted, CAS would have to provide financial support to adoptive families.
Under this system, removed children become a source of income to CAS.
|
|
|
|
Flaws
As previously mentioned, CAS is a local organization. Regulations and the constitutions of each agency are different. Miscarriage of justice is common. Some shocking incidents are the Toronto Motherisk scandal in 2014 and adoptive and foster father sexual assault scandal in 2013.
Motherisk is a laboratory Toronto Sickkids Children's Hospital, the lab is also CAS long-term partners.
If CAS suspect a father or mother has a drug addiction or alcoholism, so they have the right to extract the person's hair, saliva, and then submit them to the Motherisk lab for testing.
If lab analysis showed that drug test is positive, then CAS would be entitled to remove this person's children.
In mid-2015, an independent third-party survey suggests that equipment in Motherisk lab is not up to standard. It is highly likely to make mistakes. In re-examination of previous Motherrisk cases, dozens of errors have been found. This implies that CAS has destroyed dozens of innocent families.
This news immediately caused an uproar. CAS pleaded ignorance and immediately terminated several hundred tests in Motherisk lab. Hundreds of removed children still remain in care.
The fate of these removed children remain unclear. What happened to those who have been removed from their parents based on faulty test results?
In 2013, five children who were placed by CAS in foster families jointly sue their foster parents. They alleged physical abuse and sexual assault by their foster parents during their childhood. Three out of the four accused have already pleaded guilty.
Removed children are forced to live their childhood in homes of strangers. They never enjoy the warmth of family. They have to muster tremendous courage to take the witness stand in court to seek justice against these devils.
Protest voice
So Why? Why such a corrupt, ruthless, irresponsible organization still exists? Why the once righteous CAS degenerated?
Now, I will answer all the questions asked before. How can we stop CAS aggrandizement? How should we assess the intent of CAS employees? How do we put CAS back on track?
Answer: Third Party Oversight Supervision
Since 1980, the Canadian Parliament had passed numerous similar bill: Bill No. 88, Act 93, Act 130, Act 131, Act 183, Act No. 110, No. 42 bill.
These acts are proposed by righteous lawmakers to empower a third party to conduct full investigations on CAS. If any one of these bills are passed, authorities can investigate, collect evidence and prosecute.
But all of the above bills have failed and voted down by MPP (members of provincial parliament of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario).
In 2013, Act No. 42 (An Act to amend the Ombudsman Act with respect to children's aid societies) was proposed by the Hamilton Conservative MP Ms. Monique Taylor.
Among these bills, Act 42 is the closest to success. It passed the first and second debate, but then it flopped.
Ms. Monique Taylor is a mother. Before the formal submission of the bill, she collected signatures from 1200 households in a joint letter to support her bill. However, she did not succeed.
In the second round of debate, the bill received 55 votes in favor and 34 votes against it.
Why MPP opposed the bill? Perhaps, they have their reasons. Perhaps the real face of CAS will be unveiled one day. However, we must not forget that millions of removed kids who cry each night, the missing members in countless family portrait and the brokern hearts of oppressed parents.
If the solidarity of all of us is needed to protect our children, then apathy from all of us is also required to turn a blind eye on the pain of removed children.
Remarks
Child protective service is a global problem in most English-speaking nations. CAS, MCFD's counterpart in Ontario, are creating the same problems and has attracted immense public outrage.
|
Powerful As God - The Children's Aid Societies, MCFD's counterpart in Ontario. CPS is a global problem. Hear the testimony of an ex-CPS worker below.
|
State sponsored child removal creates similar problems in CPS infested jurisdictions worldwide. Hear what an ex American CPS worker said.
|
Under the pretext of child protection, workers in child protection agencies in all CPS-infested jurisdiction have power more than the police and, in many cases, provincial court judges. Motivated by job security and financial interests, they ruthlessly remove children to fabricate demand of their services without fear of personal repercussion. The 2011 documentary film "Powerful As God" contains testimonies from oppressed parents and victims. It provides evidence that demands a verdict.
Many Canadians presume that removed children are in good hands. Empirical data prove the contrary. Children in foster care are at a greater risk of suicide, the increased risk of suicide is still prevalent after leaving foster care and occurs at a higher rate than the general population. They suffer an overall higher mortality rate than children in the general population, often due to substance abuse, accidents, suicide, medical conditions and developmental delays. They are much less likely to be successful in school and are more likely to experience behavioral problems, involve in criminal activities and become a chronic burden to society as welfare recipients.
From a broader perspective, the corruption reveals flaws in democracy. It is obvious that child welfare legislation and policies are controlled by service providers whose job security depends on government funding. Elected politicians turn a blind eye to CAS created atrocities and generously spend our hard earned tax dollars to placate service providers. To maximize the chance of success in the next election, politicians do not want to antagonize the unions and associations who represent most front line child protection workers, lawyers, shrinks and foster parents. These service providers form a cartel and will gang up against whoever may jeopardize their lucrative business. The 2015 JP case 2015 BCSC 1216 in B.C. demonstrates how vigorous service providers will fight back when challenged. They have access to the deep pocket of taxpayers and are generously abusing it to further their interests. There is no built-in mechanism to correct the problem. Grievance and legitimate complaints from oppressed parents are ignored. Children who died in care are written off as an inevitable act of god. Malice, misconduct and misfeasance in public office are whitewashed as honest mistakes. More funding is granted after ministry created atrocities went public. Whistle blowers, critics and those who disagree with what the industry does are persecuted, threatened of breaking the law (often violation of privacy) or placed under duress of child removal. Ironically, CPS jeopardizes the safety of our children, civil liberty and freedom. It weakens our nation by breaking up families, perpetuating more social problems and social unrest.
Our remarks below are given not for the purpose of criticism of the article but to provide supplementary knowledge to enhance better understanding of problems created by state-sponsored child removal.
-
We noted the following technical errors:
-
The logo of CASsuggested that it was created in 1853, not 1985 as stated in the source document.
- CAS is indeed a provincial, not a national organization as stated in the source document.
- CAS is run by local directors all over the province of Ontario, not in the country as stated in the source document.
- FIPPA and MFIPPA are statutes, not regulations as stated in the source document.
-
The logo of CAS
- CAS is also known as Catholic Children's Aid Society (CCAS), for instance, Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton.
- The adoptive and foster father sexual assault scandal in 2013 refers to Howard Smith (Foster Father) of Scarborough who pleaded guilty of (statutory) raping his underage foster child between 26 April 1978 and 13 July 1978 after DNA analysis confirmed that he is the biological father of the daughter of the victim.
- Another case of persecution is the arrest of a Hong Kong couple Hung-Kwan Yuen and Anna Zhang of Toronto in Richmond, B.C. for kidnapping their own children on 25 October 2009. Few Chinese immigrants could comprehend that they can be charged under the criminal code of kidnapping their own children in Canada.
- Some reform advocates in Ontario suggest that child removal function should be under a provincial ministry headed by an elected MPP (the equivalent of MLA in B.C.). The problems created by the MCFD and all child protection ministries in other Canadian provinces confirm that this is not a solution.
-
Accepting faulty drug test results as evidence in child protection hearings has brought administration of justice into disrepute.
Furthermore, many provincial court judges who hear child protection hearings accept allegations from child protection workers and other service providers, whose livelihood depends on state-sponsored child removal, without sufficient judicial scrutiny. They admit "expert" evidence from ministry-paid psychotherapists and counselors, such as interpretations of a child's mental state from their drawings and sand play. Only kangaroo courts would allow evidence of this caliber that blatantly disregards natural justice.
The sand play photo above was taken in an MCFD paid shrink's office. It is a tool often used to analyze the mental state of children. Children are told to place the stones at will. Shrinks analyze the psychological profile of the children from the placement of the stones. Shrinks claims that this method is scientific and accurate. In our view, this unfathomable process is open to interpretation of shrinks paid by MCFD.
- Despite our horrendous view on substance abuse, we are not aware of any law in Canada that prohibits junkies or alcoholics from raising their own children. Child protection law empowers child protection workers enormous power to remove children and circumvents proper legislative process to remove children under the care of addicts.
- The article suggests in the last section that oversight supervision by a third party is the answer to the CAS problem. With all due respects, we disagree with the proposition. The racket is a very sophisticated cartel capable of seizing every opportunity to further its financial interests. In B.C., the position of Representative for Children and Youth (RCY) was created at the recommendations of the Ted Hughes report on "B.C. Children and Youth Review" released on 7 April 2006. After observing activities of the RCY and reading its reports, we soon formed an opinion that the RCY is a pseudo watchdog beating the same drum of lobbying more funding for the industry. However, radical it may sound, the only solution is the total abolition of general child removal power based on a bureaucratic opinion and revocation of child protection law that empowered the foregoing. Our views are further elaborated in "Flaws of CFCSA and will not be repeated here.
References
- Ontario Initiates Review of Motherisk Hair Analysis - The Honourable Susan Lang to Lead Independent Review by the Ministry of Attorney General (28 November 2014)
- Report of the Motherisk Report of the Motherisk Independent Review by The Honourable Susan E. Lang, Independent Reviewer (15 December 2015)
- ‘Unreliable’ tests may have led to apprehension of B.C. children by Daphne Bramham, The Vancouver Sun (10 March 2016)