Lessons Learned From This Case

1. Child protection workers often justify removal due to concerns regarding possible risk of child abuse and there is no other less intrusive means adequate to protect them. Courts accept this seemingly reasonable excuse in preliminary hearings such as a CFCSA Section 35 hearing in British Columbia and often grant interim custody to child protection agencies. This guarantees CPS involvement for a long period of time. Allowing such vague and hollow excuse to remove children puts all parents at risk of losing custody of their children for an extended period of time. Parents do not need to have done something wrong. There is always a possible risk of abuse. As long as these god-like creatures allege possible risk of abuse, they are justified to remove children in a court of law. This amounts to arbitrary removal.


2. Native families are the prime targets for child protection agencies in Canada. They are like a cash cow because the federal government of Canada subsidizes removal of Native children on a per head basis. They become a provincial tool to seek federal transfer payments. This partially explains why Aboriginal children constitute an exceptionally high per capita removal ratio compared with other ethnic groups and why child protection agencies only keep statistics on Native and non-Native removed children.

   Another financial incentive offered by the federal government is the Children's Special Allowances. CSA is a tax-free monthly federal payment made to agencies, institutions and foster parents who are responsible for the care and education of children under 18 who physically reside in Canada and who are not in the care of their parents. CSA is the child tax benefit (CTB) equivalent available to foster parents warehousing children of all ethnic groups. Once a child is removed, the federal government will cease CTB payment to biological parents and starts paying CSA to foster parents.




Alberta Human Services Minister Dave Hancock and service providers damage control propaganda Politician, bureaucrats and service providers locked arms to defend the child protection industry after the media uncovered their failure to protect children, effort to cover up, refusal to provide death information and lack of accountability. Desperate damage control cannot fool those with discernment of good or bad, right or wrong. History will prove that such self serving political and propaganda ruse cannot save the downfall of an oppressive regime.

3. Whenever atrocities occur in foster homes, government uses similar damage control ruse. First, officials cannot comment on individual cases citing privacy in child protection law. They provide very limited and, at times, misleading and incorrect information to parents surrounding the death of their removed children. Then their pseudo watchdog called Representative of Children and Youth or the like investigates the death and comes forth with recommendations often include lack of funding or casework overload as causes of the atrocities. Despite its critical appearance, this official child advocate beats the same drum with service providers in the child protection industry that a larger budget is imperative to protect children while the industry, ironically, is the largest institutional risk to child safety.


4. Perpetrators directly or indirectly causing foster child deaths are seldom named or held accountable.


5. In their infinite wisdom, most judges allege that foster homes are known safe places. They err on the side of caution and make custody order in favor of child protection agencies. This case adds to the mountain of evidence refuting this irresponsible and unfounded assumption.


6. Unexplained death in foster homes is only one of the atrocities removed children face. Most of them are traumatized when forcibly removed from their parents. Some are sexually abused, for example the raping underage foster child case of Howard Smith (Foster Father) of Scarborough uncovered in 2013.


7. Most critics of CPS believe that flaws resulting in death of foster children are insufficient funding, inadequate training of social workers and case overloads. Failing Our Children by Margo Goodhand published on 12 June 2009 supports the foregoing. They fail to see the root problem is the oppressive and inhumane nature of state-sponsored child removal. Under the pretext of child protection, the industry is controlled by financially motivated service providers who remove children for job security and business opportunities. In all child protection hearings and mediations, parents and their supporters are the only parties who go there without getting paid. Too much power and money have been given to the wrong hands.


8. If you think that this is an isolated incident, the following deaths in foster care may change your view:
   • "Edmonton mother Jamie Sullivan went public after her infant Delonna Sullivan died in care";
   • "a 3-year old foster kid by Lily Choy, a foster mum in Edmonton in 2007."

   These are just the tip of an iceberg. Of course, there are many more foster child deaths around the world where governments have the absolute power to remove children from their families.



9. As long as government retains the power to remove children at will, Dani Isabella Jean is not the first removed child who died in foster home and certainly will not be the last. Mark our words.