18-old Alex Gervais died after falling from a hotel window while in government care
Six days after the teen's death, B.C. Children and Family Development Minister Stephanie Cadieux admitted she still had no idea who placed the teen in the hotel, or why her ministry's own guidelines around youth placement in hotels were not followed.

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-now
Bookmark and Share
donate button
PAPA logo
notice board blogger icon
New links

Andrew Chang of CBC News interviews Stephanie Cadieux, the political master of MCFD when the atrocity occurred.
Despite the opposition called for the minister to resign, Premier Christy Clark said on 25 September 2015 that she stood behind her minister.
Line Decarie of Quebec, aunt of Alex Gervais, says she tried unsuccessfully to adopt her her nephew multiple times.
Alex Gervais was born in Quebec to parents who struggle with mental illness. Line Decarie tried to get custody of Gervais more than once, but was denied. "He did have family that loved him but we were kept out of the loop because of political issues and parental laws and so forth where we could have maybe helped him," she said. "And he died maybe not knowing he was truly loved." Decarie says she plans to take her nephew's ashes back to Quebec so his family there hold a memorial for him.
On 30 September 2015, a 16-year old Aboriginal child spoke on the real life in foster care after removed by Children's Aid Society (CAS), MCFD's counterpart in Ontario. You will never find this kind of embarrassing remarks and feedbacks from the receiving end of state-sponsored child removal in government reports or propaganda.
In an interview with a young 16 year old crown ward girl from Sault Ste Marie Ontario, who was snatched from her loving family by the Children's Aid Society of Algoma. The pre-teen has spent her short life being bounced around multiple foster homes. She longs for reunion with her real parents.

Nothing is new under the sun. Despite the fact that she is from another CPS-infested jurisdiction, she suffers similar treatments like emotional abuse, lack of care, separation from her siblings, moved around in different foster homes, held captive against her will, prevented to go back to her allegedly abusive parents. It does not matter whether child removal is carried out by a government ministry or a delegated non-profit society. Similar problems persist as long as child protection workers have the absolute power to remove children based on a bureaucratic opinion.
On 24 September 2015, friends of Alex Gervais spoke out after his death to Global News. Despite their young age, these kids raised some interesting points.

Death of Alex Gervais in Abbotsford, British Columbia


While the Ministry of Children and Family Development (hereinafter known as MCFD) is in full gear to whitewash the J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216 judgment handed down by the Supreme Court of B.C. in July, another ministry-created tragedy hits MCFD.

In the morning of 18 September 2015, Alex Gervais, an 18-year old Quebec born First Nations youth, fell to his death from the fourth-floor of a Super-8 Motel in Abbotsford where he had been sent to live alone and unsupervised. At the time of death, he was still in government care. The ministry in charge is the infamous MCFD.

The late Mr. Gervais had been moved a total of 16 times (Arianne Dickson, his girlfriend, cited over 30 times in a Global News footage on 24 September 2015) in the foster system. He had been placed in a hotel for the last three to five months. Before that, he was in a group home that was shut down after the young people living there complained directly to the Representative for Children and Youth (RCY) Turpel-Lafond. Turpel-Lafond told CBC News that the group home was covered in mold. She said, "There was no food, there were caregivers with criminal records who hadn't been screened, there was inappropriate, abusive language. The young people were really in a lot of distress." In December 2014, Turpel-Lafond authored a report warning against the practice of leaving teens in hotels, calling it "a costly and non-therapeutic approach."

While the B.C. Coroners Service is still investigating, the police ruled that the death "not suspicious". The cause of death is fall from high ground. But how and why he fell remains unknown at the time of writing.

Spree in the media

After ministry-created atrocities occur, they spawn a short-lived discussion spree in the media. To the child protection industry (hereinafter known as the industry unless otherwise specified), this unwanted publicity is a nuisance as well as an opportunity to get more fundings and power. Reactions of politicians and service providers reflect how vigorously the industry will fight back to protect its best interests and status quo.

Those who know little about child protection may ask why an 18-year old person who is old enough to vote are still in government care. Child protection law, mainly the Child Family and Community Service Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 46 (CFCSA), stipulates the age of protection up to 19 years of age in British Columbia. This is the highest among other Canadian provinces and territories. To secure their financial interests, service providers are advocating that the age of protection be raised to 25 [read "Children in government care should be able to stay until age 25, Turpel-Lafond report (The Vancouver Sun, 28 April 2014)"].

Kris Archie is the manager of the Vancouver Foundation's Fostering Change initiative and a former foster child. CBC News reported on 28 September 2015 that Archie alleged 40% of all homeless youth in Vancouver have been in the foster system for at least some time. She believes that "We've given them the promise that their parents couldn't take care of them and so our government would." Her interview suggests the following:

  1. State sponsored child removal contributes to prolonged poverty and homelessness. It is safe to contend that child removal creates more problems than it solves, rendering it counter productive to archive its original goal of improving child welfare.

  2. Many foster children are indoctrinated to believe that their parents have abandoned them and state sponsored child removal is well intentioned and much needed to protect them. While a small number of parents do indeed abandon their children, many, if not most, parents with children removed are fighting against child protection agency to get their children back at all costs. For instance, JP (a single mother in Vancouver) spent all she has on legal fees to fight for custody and is now on food bank after the legal battle settled. Many parents are depressed and stressed after losing the permanent custody of their children. Some suicided. Their desire to reclaim custody is seldom communicated to removed children. Many foster children are brainwashed to hate their parents with false or misleading information fed by child protection workers or by their lapdogs foster parents. The industry uses brainwashed foster children for window dressing propaganda and as pawns to garner public support for more fundings.

On 24 September 2015, friends of Alex Gervais spoke out on his death to Global News. Some of their noteworthy remarks and our comments are tabled as follows:
Friend's Remarks
Our Comments
"He failed to get the help he needed in the foster care system. After being over 30 foster homes, he craved love, family and a forever home that the foster home system would not or could not provide for him."

"Alex told me constant stories of abuse, extreme neglect, favouritism, false claims, and most importantly, abandonment….in my heart, I firmly believe Alex did not want to commit suicide, nor was this an accident. I know this was a desperate cry for help. Alex, I love you dearly.” (Arianne Dickson, Alex's girlfriend)
Those who think that foster homes are known safe places and are suitable for children are wrong. Hear what the deceased girlfriend said on Alex's experience. Contrary to popular belief, abuse, neglect, lies (false claims used in her statement), abuses are common in foster care. Expecting love from service providers is wishful thinking.
"I believe that Alex is really mistreated. He deserves a lot better. He never has any proper guidance." "Nobody ever shows him any love. Nobody ever helps him properly, especially people in the Ministry and the people in charge of him." (Dylan Pelly, friend) The only guidance that foster children have is hatred of their parents. Love is rare in foster homes. One would find more "love" in a brothel than in a government agency. Most Ministry employees only give their hearts to their pay cheques and their fat government pension.
“They kind of just gave up on him.” “They didn’t think there was anything they could do, but that when they need to step in the most. They didn’t do it right. When someone needs guidance, you can’t put them by themselves. He had was troubled, he had issues going on, and there was no one he could talk to. He was stuck in a hotel room.” (Joey Long, friend in black T-shirt who shaved his beard into a goatee) Neglect, maltreatment, abuse are common when children are removed from their parents and dumped into foster homes, group homes or hotels. This is what child protection is in reality.
"He talked about being depressed. The Ministry never helps him out. He basically was left alone." (friend with a white baseball cap) Leaving removed children unattended in foster home is common. The photo on the right shows a young foster boy left unsupervised in a Port Coquitlam foster home in 2006. If parents leave children unsupervised at home, they risk child protective service (CPS) scrutiny and possibly removal.
"I don't know what kind of screening they did for who is supposed to be looking after him. But I can't even tell you really one good social worker that the guy has. They all treat him like crap. Do your own thing. I am getting paid. So you know, do your own thing. He was a pay cheque to them." (Joey Long, friend in black T-shirt who shaved his beard into a goatee)
Getting paid is the main preoccupation of all service providers in the industry. Protecting children is merely a pretext to rip off taxpayers.

Despite what degree a child protection worker may have, there is really no such professional in child protection or child care. Responsible parents are the only one who qualify to claim such professionalism. Service providers pretend that they are professionals to gain trust and clout from the gullible public.

Speaking of proper background checks for foster caregivers, even male prostitute could run a foster home in B.C. What else could not happen? In their infinite wisdom, foster homes are what many judges describe as known safe places in their judgment.

Even more disturbing, Edward Owen Berry a former MCFD manager was arrested on 16 December 2014 and charged of possessing child pornography and accessing child pornography in Prince George, British Columbia. There are foxes in the hen house. We just do not know how many wolves in sheep skin are working in the industry and covering up the crimes they have committed against children and parents.
“There were never any proper background checks for employees. ... The people he lived with ain't no role model. Half of them seem like they didn't care. Alex is just a pay check to anyone. ... It pisses me off. What kind of professional people that are in charge of other people’s lives just leave people in a 4-story hotel and give them the opportunity to do that, knowing he needs counseling.” (Dylan Pelly, friend)
"He came to my house and told me his problems. We party all night and wait through the sun comes up. We have great times." (the guy wearing sunglass, friend) Children in care are allowed to party all night. Do you trust putting your own kids in care?
"He (Alex) never has parents. So you are taking a kid who never has parents. Someone is supposed to be there to guide him and you are throwing him in a hotel room by himself. Where is the guidance in there?" (Joey Long, friend in black T-shirt who shaved his beard into a goatee) Wrong. Alex does have parents. Both his parents Lise Decarie and Peter Geravis survive him. His father was in his funeral on 3 October 2015. It was the child protection agency who removed him from his parents and orphaned him. Why? Because some service providers want to make some money out of his removal. After all, Alex is a high value target because of his First Nation background.
“I don't understand the Ministry. They say they care but they really don't.” (friend with a white baseball cap) If you try to understand the Ministry's modus operandi with common sense and logic, their decisions are often incomprehensible. But if you think along the lines of corruption and racketeering, absurdities surrounding state-sponsored child removal could then become clear that service providers are often self serving for the purpose of aggrandizement and retaliatory to preserve the status quo using fear, public ignorance and apathy. All they care is to remove children to ensure that all monies in their budget are spent so that they could ask for more next year.
"There are supposed to be people checking up on him and people living there. ... Barely any body who would check up on him. ... I think there should be people checking up on the social workers to make sure they are checking up on the kids." (Joey Long, friend in black T-shirt who shaved his beard into a goatee) The industry loves the idea of hiring more people to check up on them because this is no a solution to the problems. Do we have a watchdog called RCY? A pseudo watchdog we must add because this watchdog beats the same drum of spending more dollars on the racket in a different way. The only solution is to stop state-sponsored child removal by changing laws.
It appears that the reporter interviewing Alex's friends was asking leading questions on the issue of extending "care" to foster children over age 19. In a report titled "On Their Own: Examining the Needs of B.C. Youth as They Leave Government Care" published on 28 April 2014, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond called for the flexibility for foster children to leave care and come back if they need to, says they should have a guaranteed minimum level of income support through their transition to independence, and that they should have access to extended medical, dental and counselling to age 25. Turpel-Lafond said her recommendations are not unachievable. They are practical, sensible and they are long overdue. Since the inception of her office during the Campbell era, many, if not most, of her recommendations in her reports are advocating more money be spent in the industry. She indeed beats the same drum in a subtle and different way that serves the best interests of the industry. She never investigates issues that could lead to the collapse of the racket. Who are the real authors of these problems? What if these adults who graduate from foster care still cannot live independently after 25? Should taxpayers support them for the rest of their lifetime?

On 29 September 2015, CBC News reported that Joyce Rigaux (a former B.C. superintendent for child welfare who worked for the ministry under the NDP government in the early 1990s) said MCFD does not have the staff, budget or support needed to care for the children in its care. Rigaux sued the Ministry of Social Services (MCFD's predecessor) in the late 1990's surrounding adverse findings of misconduct in the Report of the Gove Inquiry which were detrimental to her career and reputation [read "Rigaux v. Ministry of Social Services (Commissionner of Inquiry), 1998 CanLII 6320 (BC SC)"].

On 3 October 2015, Line Decarie, the aunt of Alex Gervais, came from Quebec to attend her nephew's funeral in Abbotsford. The father of the deceased, Peter Gervais, was also there. She shed some light on why Alex was removed. His parents struggle with mental illness. Line tried to get custody of Gervais more than once, but was denied. She told CBC News that they were kept out of the loop because of political issues and parental laws. She plans to take her nephew's ashes back to Quebec so his family there hold a memorial for him.

Line Decarie says she is going to push for changes in the childcare system in B.C., demanding more resources for social workers, more rights for family members who want to help, and an end to the practice of housing vulnerable youth in hotels.

A Shocking Revelation

Alex Gervais text message
Foster brother Stephen Fromow revealed that Alex Gervais was depressed and addicted (time marker 1:23 of the video).
Stephen Fromow said he hopes the review into his foster brother's death goes beyond the decision to put the depressed and addicted teen into a hotel, unsupervised.

Right: Text message from Alex Gervais to a close friend sent while in provincial care.
(Courtesy: CBC News)

On 6 October 2015, CBC News released an article titled "Alex Gervais's foster brother says nothing wrong with former group home". Stephen Fromow, now age 20, shared a group home with Gervais for seven years. Fromow revealed that Gervais was depressed and addicted. Many children are removed because their parents are addicted to harmful substances such as drugs and alcohol. Their removal is supposed to prevent bad habits be learned. Gervais proved that foster children could become addicted while in care. Contrary to public belief, foster children are much more likely to have depression and addiction problems, the same problems Gervais had.

The ministry is currently reviewing whether or not its policy was followed. Why bureaucrats run in circle to get answer on a question that has already been answered by fact. A kid in care jumped out a window in a hotel unsupervised. Of course its policy of not dumping removed children in hotel was not followed. The next relevant question is how and where could foster children get money to buy drugs from and who should be held responsible for not following policy that led to death.

Another disturbing report titled "Alex Gervais's family calling for inquiry into troubled teen's death" was aired on 5 October 2015 in which a person close to Alex Gervais shared text messages with CBC News that the teenager sent while in provincial care. The message from the deceased said, "He (presumably foster parent) doesn't feed me he is never around ... robed me for most of my valuables and I will not be reimbursed. ... seems to think that if he accounts for the things he buys for himself with the money by showing receipts that he can get away with it."

Although not every foster parents behave like the one miserable Geravis had, many, if not most, foster parents are warehousing children for money. It is a lucrative business to people with little job skills. Well being of children is often not their top priority. Those who think that foster homes are known safe places, think again.

Lessons Learned

  1. From the media interviews of Arianne Dickson (Alex's girlfriend) and his other friends aired on 24 September 2015, it is likely that Mr. Gervais committed suicide because he had been abused, neglected and abandoned in foster care. This amounts to mental abuse, which is a type of child abuse that often results in removal according to CPS standard. While most alleged mental abuse in parental care does not result in suicide, this one did while in care of MCFD.

  2. Turpel-Lafond said senior ministry staff told her directly that none of the 33 displaced youth from several group homes would be moved to hotels. Death of Alex Gervais confirmed that the assurance is sham. Foster children have in fact been placed in hotel.

    Telling lies, providing misleading and inaccurate information, fabricating evidence to support child removal are common modus operandi in the industry. Most oppressed parents often encounter these unlawful practices while their children are held captive. The judgment of J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216 confirmed the foregoing first time in Canadian legal history. In our view, service providers are not trustworthy. They appear to protect children but only pledge their loyalty to financial interests and job security. They give their heart only for good bills of exchange and will do anything to protect themselves and the industry, including under reporting the number of deaths in foster homes (such as the Albertan scandal in November 2013). Take anything at face value from them is often a regrettable decision.

  3. On 23 September 2015, CBC News reported that placing foster children in hotels is supposed to be a temporary measure used in emergency circumstances only. In an emailed statement, B.C. Minister of Children and Family Development Stephanie Cadieux wrote, "Hotels are – and should only be – used in rare occurrences and as briefly as possible... Staff have not reported to the provincial director on any other children or youth in care who are placed in hotels at this time." Her plea of ignorance earns the support of B.C. Premier Christy Clark.

    Blaming staff and pleading ignorance are a common political ruse to deny responsibility. It is lame way of saying: "I know nothing about this. Therefore, I am innocent. So don't blame me." There is no merit in this irresponsible denial. Furthermore, if the minister does not have complete knowledge of what her ministry is doing and insufficient control of MCFD employees, this suggests incompetence. It is a dangerous proposition as her child protection workers have access to the deep pocket of taxpayers and near absolute authority to remove children under age 19 at will with little fear of any repercussion. They are motivated by job security to remove children. This puts both children and parents at risk. By her own admission of lack of knowledge of what ministry employees are doing, this alone justifies a call of resignation. How can a minister lead without full knowledge and control of the employees of a ministry?

  4. If the minister is correct that her order of not placing removed children in hotels is not followed by her staff, she has lost control of her ministry. Even the top dog does not have control of child protection workers and other supporting staff, who can keep these dogs with power to remove children at will on leash? In view of the foregoing, abuse of power like in the JP's case is bound to happen. Child removal authority seriously jeopardizes our safety and, ironically, the welfare of children.

  5. The pulbic may find it unfathomable why removed children are placed in hotels and left unsupervised. The RCY remarked this practice "a costly and non-therapeutic approach." This is certainly an expensive approach that costs taxpayers dearly. Child removal itself is never therapeutic. On the contrary, it is often mentally injurious and, at times, physically harmful or even fatal (as evident in this case and many others).

  6. The public and, at times, victim's families often form an opinion that tragedies created by child removal are caused by lack of resources for social workers and case work overload. When they vow to push for changes along this line, this is precisely what the industry wants - a higher budget, more child protection workers, more litigations on child custody. This will only create more problems and more deaths of foster children. We have seen child protection workers unrelated to the case appearing in court to support their colleagues for days, hence wasting numerous man-hours on non-productive activities. Before they have the power to control demand of their service, they prolong their involvement on files that should have been closed to inflate workload to ensure job security. The Ministry is over staffed with non-productive and counter productive employees.

    The only solution to this fiasco is to stop state-sponsored child removal and use public fundings to help families in need directly, not to flow tax dollars through the hands of service providers. This explains why family members are often denied custody applications (despite laws say otherwise) and kept out of the loop like what Line Decarie had encountered.

  7. This atrocity adds to the mountain of evidence refuting foster homes are known safe places, which is an excuse used by many judges when making decisions in favor of MCFD.

  8. Generally, hotel operators are not a beneficiary of the industry. Warehousing removed children in hotels does not appear to support our theory of aggrandizement and racketeering by service providers. Wrong. The name of the game is to remove more children, especially First Nation children who would bring federal subsidies on a per head basis, to support the industry. Foster parents are just one of the many beneficiaries. When removed children are dumped in hotels, lawyers representing both sides, psychotherapists, child protection workers still get their business and job security.

  9. Thanks to the diligent effort of an anonymous blogger, there is no record of payment to Super 8 Motel in the public accounts of MCFD up to 31 March 2015. If removed children had been placed in this motel chain before this date, this leads to the question of where the motel payments come from and how such payments could be concealed under the separation of spending and payment authority in provincial government financial management system. Lack of proper accounting may imply more corruption.

  10. The death of Mr. Alex Gervais is either homicide or suicide (by will or under influence of illicit substances). Either way, the Ministry fails to protect. If the cause of death is the latter, then we must ask why children in care would have access to illicit substances and where do they get the money to buy them?

  11. Despite his First Nation background, Mr. Alex Gervais has an Anglo-Saxon surname and bears little resemblance of a Canadian Native. This proves that child removal is an effective cultural assimilation tool during the residential school era. Of course, modern child protection is equally powerful, hypocritical and oppressive.

Sophistication of the racketeering

Whenever ministry-created atrocity occurs, the RCY is often the first official to voice concerns, allege deficiencies and conduct a review or investigation in due course. The RCY plays a leading role in directing the media and the public where to look for the problems. Typically, the RCY plays a righteous Batman challenging a devious Joker minster who desperately evade embarrassing questions citing privacy protection of the family in question. This good guy and bad guy farce creates a tangent to divert attention away from the real issues.

Based on a recommendation of the Gove Inquiry, the RCY was created in 2006 during the Campbell era. At first, it gave a ray of hope that the government is finally doing something to rectify the abuse of power and other related wrongs in state sponsored child removal. Today, naive people still hold high hope that the RCY will offer a solution to stop ministry-created atrocities one day.

To the dismay of those who truly understand the corruptive and oppressive nature of modern child protection, many RCY recommendations advocate more government commitments, more resources and more tax dollars to the industry. After the scandal of under reporting foster children deaths in Alberta, the political function of RCY as an excuse to fend off criticism became apparent. In addition to cultivate public opinions to support more funding to the industry, the RCY limits public scope on ministry-created problems and subtly steers media focus away from the corruption, racketeering and anything that could collapse the industry. To conceal corruption and to mitigate damage to the industry, what else could be better to have control on the only official critical channel? Despite the critical appearance of RCY, this bureaucracy is a pseudo watchdog that serves to divert public attention to the real issues. In this case, for instance, the RCY focused on why older removed children are placed in hotels and left alone, and why senior MCFD staff misled the RCY to believe that there is no child warehoused in that manner. These are merely circumstantial. In our view, the following issues are more relevant to solve the real problems:

  1. Will Alex be better off in the care of his parents if resources spent on him were given to his family to care for him? Is this option more productive, effective and economical in protecting children in this scenario?
  2. Why the adoption application from the next of kin, Aunt Line Decarie who is willing and able, declined?
  3. Does true love and care that Alex craved to get exist in foster care?
  4. Why many foster children fail to live an independent life after they reach 19? What is wrong with MCFD's expensive foster care?
  5. Why are removed children depressed? Is it because of the forced separation from their families?
  6. Statistically, are foster homes safer than parental homes?

The RCY often asks embarrassing superficial questions but stops short of raising sensitive and indefensible issues that could potentially collapse the industry. This demonstrates the sophistication of the racket.


This tragedy reveals a frightening reality that most Canadians are unaware of until they become a victim of state sponsored child removal. Child protective service could remove children in absurd situations such as when mentally challenged parents need help. They could deny adoption applications from next of kin and eventually get removed children killed while in care without being held accountable. They could literally get away with murders and wrongful deaths of children, the very subjects they are paid to protect. The J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216 judgment confirms that child protection workers could maliciously abuse their power to remove children without getting criminally charged. They could evade judicial scrutiny at the provincial court level, compel parents to lengthy custody litigations at the expense of taxpayers, bankrupt parents and government coffer and create unspeakable horror to families and children. They do not have to obey provincial court orders to return children and continue to use delaying tactics that could eventually give them a legal reason to adopt removed children. In reality, they have more power than provincial court judges. Using children as pawns, they could toy and destroy vulnerable children and parents in whatever way they like.

Like in most published ministry-created atrocities, little can be found on the cause of removal. All we are told is that Mr. Gervais has a troubled past. What kind of trouble? Alleged by whom? We do not know. If he was removed because of the mental illness of his parents, his death strengthens the belief that government intervention harms more than helps to families struggling with mental illness. Removed children are worse off in foster care.

His First Nation background probably contributes to his removal. The provincial government gets federal subsidies from his removal, rendering him a tool to seek transfer payment. Our views on this notion can be found in MCFD & The First Nation. It is noteworthy to add that there is an over-representation of Aboriginal children in most CPS-infested nations, especially those with a colonial background. This suggests that child removal is politically and financially motivated.

We believe that the minister should be relieved from her position to set an example that failure to lead and refusal to listen to the people carry political consequences. However, firing an incompetent and irresponsible minister will by no means solve the problem. Despite what political party is in power and who happens to be the minister, ministry-created atrocities will not stop unless general child removal authority is revoked. How many more children have to die in foster care before those in power act? No meaningful reform is possible when service providers have such undue absolute power and are financially motivated to remove children in a closed system where there is little transparency. Our views are further elaborated at the Flaws of CFCSA and will not be repeated here.

Sara-Jane Wiens, mother of the baby girl who died in 2013 while in BC foster care, speaks to Global News about the lawsuit.
On 25 March 2015, Sara-Jane Wiens, mother of the baby girl who died in 2013 while in BC foster care, speaks to Global News about her lawsuit against MCFD.
B.C. is not alone. Child removal is a global problem. The Ontario government is facing class action lawsuit from former Crown wards who were abused in the hands of the infamous Children's Aid Society (CAS).

Death of foster children occurs in all age groups. It happens more often than what most Canadians would believe. Some of them died in care shortly after removal. For instance,

  1. 4-month old Delonna Sullivan died in care on 11 April 2011 (6 days after removal);
  2. One-month old Manitoba foster baby Matias de Antonia died in care on 27 March 2014 (32 days after removal);
  3. Six-Week Old Dani Jean Died In Alberta Foster Home on 3 May 2013 (died 3 weeks after removal);
  4. 21-month old daugher Isabella of Sara-Jane Wiens died in 2013 while in BC foster care (she is contemplating a lawsuit against the Ministry).

The aforesaid deaths and lawsuits are just a small fraction of all nationwide and worldwide. They only reveal the tip of an iceberg.

This tragedy confirms our view that the industry is bad news to every politician, a nightmare to parents under scrutiny and an unbearable burden to taxpayers who pay the costs of lawsuits and damages of wrongful deaths, misfeasance in public office and torts. Elected officials who support the industry are sitting on a time bomb. It could end their political career anytime any day. Contrary to conventional political wisdom, protecting the status quo, or worse, allocating more public resources to the racket is silly and inadvertently suicidal. Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they are ratified into law. Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency.

Attempts to cover up the crimes committed under the pretext of child protection carry political consequences. The ending of the 44-year long Progressive Conservative dynasty in Alberta is a recent example. There is ample amount of empirical evidence confirming that state sponsored child removal harms more than helps families in need. No more costly review or inquiry by retired judges or bureaucrats is needed. If the B.C. Liberals do not want to sink in the next election, stop all whitewashing efforts in ministry-created atrocities, admit that state sponsored child removal does not serve the best interests of society, repeal CFCSA in its entirety, revoke general child removal authority. This is the only political option to restore accountability in government and to ensure safety of Canadians. We say in no uncertain terms that state-sponsored child removal opens government to a plague of corruption and racketeering. No responsible politicians should turn a blind eye to this. The world would be better without state sponsored child removal.


[This page was conceptualized on 1 October 2015, published on 2 October 2015, last revised on 18 October 2015.]