J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216 Aftermath

Introduction

After the Supreme Court of B.C. handed down the unprecedented judgment "J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216" (hereinafter known as the Judgment unless stated otherwise) on 14 July 2015, the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) has commenced a series of costly actions calculated to mitigate the damaging effects of the scathing decision.

The Background section (paragraph [2] to [19]) of J.P. v. Plecas, 2015 BCSC 1962 provides a brief summary of what had transpired in the JP's case.

Whitewashing scheme and JP's response

After the MCFD announced that Mr. Bob Plecas has been hired to lead a review on her case, JP filed an application to the Information and Privacy Commissioner seeking prohibition of Plecas to have access to her information on file with the MCFD. Since it is safe to contend that Plecas is retained to contain the damaging effects of the Judgment, JP's application serves to protect her hard-earned court findings from being whitewashed.

To preserve the best interests of the child protection industry (hereinafter known as the industry unless specified otherwise), the battles between JP and the B.C. Government in chronological order transpired as follows:

1. Since JP now has custody of all her children, there are pawns that the Ministry could use to silence her or to at least use the fear of re-removal of her children to make JP thinks twice of what to do next. Her financial hardship resulted from ministry-created atrocity provides a good excuse of intervention again.
   
   On 20 July 2015, JP received a letter from MCFD asking for home visits and interviews with her kids. She found out the Ministry may have gone into the school and interviewed her kids. She feels extremely violated and could not sleep. Retaliation under the pretext of child protection is common when parents disagree with the Ministry's position or after winning a court case. This is a signal to tell JP to thread carefully because the Ministry has the power to remove her children again and again if necessary. So bite the bullet and take a hike. There are consequences if she continues to rock the boat. We often hear child protection workers threaten defiant parents with this line.


2. Instead of immediate dismissal and criminal prosecution of breach of trust, obstruction of justiceEvery one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding and false pretenceA false pretence is a representation of a matter of fact either present or past, made by words or otherwise, that is known by the person who makes it to be false and that is made with a fraudulent intent to induce the person to whom it is made to act on it. (pursuant to Section 336, 139 and 361 of the Criminal Code respectively), Mr. William Strickland has been promoted from the position of Team Leader to Community Services Manager in Vancouver Island South. Of course, he is now earning a higher salary and has more subordinate responsibilities. His relocation also places him in a less embarrassing work environment.
   
   His promotion clearly signifies that the Ministry finds no wrong in his actions and affirms his decisions made while he was in charge of the JP's case. In another words, the Ministry's vouching either refutes the Supreme Court findings or encourages its employees to commit misfeasance in public office, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the standard of care by way of promotion.


3. The Ministry retained respected former bureaucrat Mr. Bob Plecas who helped built MCFD when it became a stand alone ministry in 1996 and drew up the lopsided Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA) that grants absolute authority to social workers to remove children without a court order. Mr. Plecas was made a Director of MCFD two weeks after he was retained to head the review to facilitate access of confidential information and to defeat JP's application to prohibit him access.
   
   Furthermore, his mandate is conveniently limited to review the child protection practice and actions taken by ministry staff, supervisors, and legal counsel contracted to represent the Director under the CFCSA were consistent with legislation, policies and standards during MCFD’s contact with the family during 2009 to 2012. Be mindful that most, if not all, court findings of misfeasance in public office, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the standard of care occurred after 2012. The time limit imposed on the Plecas review will effectively eliminate all MCFD wrongdoings.
   
   As the Representative for Children and Youth (RCY) has duly noted in her "Statement in response to government's review announcement" dated 24 July 2015, the government’s public statement says that the review “is not intended to retry the court case” while on the other hand, it says that a specific “objective” of the review is to “assess if the child protection practice and actions taken by ministry staff, supervisors, and legal counsel contracted to represent the Director under the CFCSA were consistent with legislation, policies and standards during [MCFD’s] contact with the family during 2009 to 2012” – matters on which Justice Walker has made clear findings.
   
   This brilliant ruse is designed to whitewash at the onset. It is one of the two probes intended to retry the JP case. The second probe is of course a formal appeal in court.


4. On 9 August 2015, the B.C. Government decided to appeal the Judgment based on the opinions of its lawyers. The objective of its appeal is crystal clear - to retry the case and to rescind the Walker findings of misfeasance in public office, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the standard of care.
   
   Despite whether there are any legal grounds for appeal, the MCFD has nothing to lose by appealing. It buys precious time to implement a well planned whitewash strategy and to dull public awareness. Costs are never a concern to government. They are using our money and when they deplete the budget, simply ask for more from taxpayers who are always an indirect victims of state-sponsored child removal.


5. The B.C. Government applied for an extension of time to file the Factum and it was granted. As a result, the 13 October 2015 Bob Plecas deadline for the review was also extended by Premier Christy Clark. The Plecas review will come out before the Factum due on 19 October 2015. So Appeal judges would be influenced by the Plecas review.


6. On 12 August 2015, media covered JP's application to the Information and Privacy Commissioner prohibiting Plecas' access of her personal information or that of her children. Her intent is to stall the review headed by Bob Plecas.


7. On 13 October 2015, Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham made her order "2015 BCIPC 60" confirming the legal propriety of the MCFD to disclose personal information to Bob Plecas and has met the duty to make reasonable security arrangements against such risks as unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure or disposal of the Complainant’s (JP) and the Complainant’s family’s personal information in the conduct of the Review.


8. On 28 October 2015, B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson handed down his decision "J.P. v. Plecas, 2015 BCSC 1962" rejecting JP's application to put an injunction against the Plecas review. Plecas thus gets clearance to proceed with his review.
   
   Media covered the Hinkson decision on the same day.


9. On 28 October 2015, Madam Justice Bennett of the B.C. Court of Appeal allowed B.G. (the father) and William Strickland a party respondent in decisions "J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCCA 480" and "J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCCA 481" respectively on 23 November 2015. Note that Karen Horseman, QC is representing the government in this case. She is one of the most senior government lawyers and currently earns $184,012 per year.

Ex CPS worker Carlos Morales, shares his view why Child Protective Services needs to be abolished. This video contains some coarse language. Viewer discretion is advised. A CPS Whisteblower exposes every evil aspect of Child Protective Services. More information can be found at Legally Kidnapped.net).

Carlos Morales gave an overview of the history and tactics of modern child protection. He shared what parents should do when scrutinized by CPS. Since he and his extended family have no children, he only needs to fear his personal safety. Although CPS tactics used on parents are similar, readers should be mindful that American child protection law is different from that in British Columbia. ).

The video above shows how a child responded after supervised visit. This is the torment JP and her children had gone through while her children were in foster care.

Conclusions

Corruption is the abuse of power by a public official or bureaucrat for private gain or any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system's original purpose. The abuse of public offices for private gain is paradigmatic of corruption. Private gain may include bribes (money or other non-monetary benefits), job security, concealment of harmful information and personal gratification of a perverted nature. The JP case demonstrates every aspect of corruption. Bureaucrats acted in bad faith to harm a family in need resulting in sexual abuse. Government attempts to whitewash adverse rulings to protect the child protection regime. Cunning and heavy-handed tactics at huge public expenses are ruthlessly used against a single mother who now lives on food bank. The Ministry is so out of control. It is so bloated and infested with fraud, deceit, ministry-created atrocities, cover ups, corruption and abuse of power.

The fight against corruption in the industry is a long, expensive, difficult and dangerous undertaking. It is always a David and Goliath battle against an authority who has access to the deep pocket of taxpayers. It is never easy. It never has been and never will be. It exacts a toll on ourself, our families, our friends, and especially our children. Nevertheless, the price we pay is well worth holding on to build a safer future for our children.

The whitewashing scheme currently underway confirms how vigorous bureaucrats will respond to protect their pay cheques and fat government pension when challenged. The industry will fight back tooth and nail if the threat is credible and could potentially collapse the corrupt temple of racketeering. It will not tolerate a legal precedence that could compromise its power (especially the finding of immunity afforded by the CFCSA to good faith discretionary decisions is not afforded to the Director and social workers) and reputation to squeeze more money from taxpayers. Under the pretext of child protection, tax dollars are spent to pursue the interests of service providers. Few individuals could afford the financial strain and bear the emotional torment of the endless legal proceedings the Ministry would commence to preserve its power, reputation, public trust and, above all, funding. This explains why the JP case is the first case in Canadian legal history in which child protection worker is found liable for misfeasance in public office, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the standard of care, despite that such wrongdoings occur on a daily basis. The Ministry's expensive whitewash exercise serves only one purpose - protecting the status quo of the child protection regime and pursue more financial benefits if opportunities arise.

The industry is good at mudslinging innocent parents and whitewashing torts of child protection workers. This amounts to distortion of truth and obstruction of justice. Government actions in the JP case exhibit abuse of tax dollars in activities unrelated to child protection. What relevance does the huge legal expenditures bear in child protection? The most disturbing issue is that government lawyers are representing perpetrators found liable in a Supreme Court ruling. Tax dollars are generously wasted to protect perpetrators who create atrocities to JP and her children. This supports the view that modern child protection is all about money, power and fame. It has little to do with child welfare.

JP appears to be losing every round since the B.C. Government started to whitewash her case after 14 July 2015. Her application to the Information and Privacy Commissioner to prohibit Plecas from accessing her MCFD file failed. Her application to the Supreme Court seeking injunction against the Plecas review met a forcefully rejection from Judge Hinkson who described her distrust of government as an “unwarranted hyperbole.” In his infinite wisdom, the judge said that her submission is scandalous and should not have been advanced in paragraph [22] of "J.P. v. Plecas, 2015 BCSC 1962".

In addition to the costs (including court awarded costs against her if she loses) of her action, another risk that JP will have to take is retaliation. To those who believe in law and order, this may appear to a paranoia. But if one is stepping on the toes of a cartel that has the absolute power to remove children, this is a very real concern. The testimony of an ex CPS worker Carlos Morales (the second video from the top on the left) confirms the foregoing. CPS around the world are often found abusing its power of child removal against those who rock the boat. For instance, the Bayne's case (2007 to 2011 British Columbia), Jessica Laboy case (2006 Florida) and cases identified by WLKY 32 Investigates in Kentucky. The JP case confirms that perpetrators suffer no personal repercussion. The root problem is child removal authority per child protection law. We admire JP's love of her children, She displays exceptional perseverance, gallantry and valor against such formidable, cunning and oppressive enemy. However, her problems are far from over. Rest assured that the industry will fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to protect its financial interests and reputation if necessary. Costs of action are never a concern because it is taxpayers' money.

Furthermore, B.G. (the father of JP's children) and William Strickland (the MCFD social worker found liable for misfeasance in public office by Judge Paul Walker) were added as party respondents by the B.C. Court of Appeal in November 2015. This will give MCFD more legal leverage as it will inevitably lengthen the appeal and other proceedings that could further bankrupt JP. The Ministry could have more witnesses to support its position and more fingers to point at JP. This legal tactic is commonly used in child protection hearings. Oppressed parents are forced to interact with service providers (such as visitation supervisors, foster parents, ministry-paid counselors) after their children are removed. Service providers often provide misconstrued, exaggerated or false reports and testimonies in subsequent court hearings to support the position of child protection workers who give them lucrative business. Few people bite the hands that feed them.

MCFD's whitewashing scheme is an arrogant conceit which further reveals corruption in government and abuse of tax dollars. Despite whether MCFD wins the appeal and what the Plecas review suggests, the JP case proves that the MCFD has spent a huge amount of tax dollars in commencing legal proceedings that bear little relevance in child protection. It confirms our belief that the only real beneficiaries in the industry are service providers. The JP's atrocity casts doubt on the integrity of our child welfare system that consumes huge public resources. This alone justifies dismantling the child removal regime.

How could an innocent citizen like JP who had suffered such unspeakable horror and abuse from government and yet is expected by the judiciary to trust the MCFD? Let us recap what has transpired.

1. MCFD was called to assist JP after the domestic violence report was filed.
2. Social worker William Strickland was confronted and accused by JP of acting inappropriately after he wrote a letter to clear BG (the father) of the allegations of physical abuse of one of the children, KG.
3. Supreme Court Judge Paul Walker found Strickland acted in bad faith, knowingly used false information to remove her children, allowed BG unsupervised access (hence disobeyed Walker's previous order of supervised access). As a result, JP's children were sexually abused during unsupervised access.
4. Judge Paul Walker ruled that child protection workers are liable for misfeasance in public office, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the standard of care after a lengthy hearing that bankrupted JP. The most damaging finding to the industry is immunity afforded by the CFCSA to good faith discretionary decisions is not afforded to the Director and social workers in this case ([1086] of J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216).
5. The MCFD promoted William Strickland, appealed the Walker's decision in higher court and retained Bob Plecas to conduct a review on her case that covers 2009 to 2012, that conveniently excludes embarrassing court findings after 2012.
6. At the beginning, Plecas was hired as an external contractor. JP has a privacy concern and applied to the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Supreme Court to prohibit Bob Plecas to have access to her personal information on MCFD files. The B.C. Government circumvented the privacy issue by making Plecas a director in MCFD.

How could anyone still expect the victim to trust the B.C. Government in the surrounding circumstance? The underlying assumption required to form such absurd expectation is government infallibility, which most objective minds will reject. Only dead fish goes with the flow. A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. In view of the whitewashing efforts after the Judgment, JP's distrust is further justified. The Hinkson judgment delivers a signal to his fellow judges on the bench and sets favorable ground for MCFD in future litigations. It is our opinion that corruption in the industry has brought the administration of justice into disrepute and is a potential cause of social unrest.

The JP's case suggests that state-sponsored child removal creates jobs that appear to protect children but is against natural justice and the best interests of children and their families. It allows service providers to aggrandize at taxpayer's expense under the pretext of child safety. It opens government to corruption and racketeering. The racket is a well established conglomerate. There is no head to cut off. If any service provider betrays the principle of the accrual of money and power, others betray him.

600,000 U.S. social workers boasted as super-heroes in CPS propaganda. According to the speaker, mission social work is to fight social injustice. This is inconsistent with the empirical data of CPS impacts on society. The industry is self-serving, self-boastful and self-righteous. Dr. Anna Scheyett described how social workers serve their communities. If there are 600,000 social workers in the U.S. in 2015, there is 1 social worker for every 500 Americans. She alleged that every one will need a social worker at some point because every one is going to face a big challenge in life. This is misleading. Many people believe what they are told. Tell a lie 100 times, false becomes truth.

The American author Samuel Langhorne Clemens (30 November 1835 – 21 April 1910, better known by his pen name Mark Twain) once wrote "Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them." In reality, his belief is only an ideal. Politicians and bureaucrats, who form government, make orders or fail to make orders when needed and decide who is a patriot and who is not in history books.

Service providers of the industry form a cartel that defines service standard, controls the demand of their services, suppresses criticisms, influences legislation of child protection law and government's child welfare policies. They are disguised law enforcers who ruthlessly act as de facto judge, jury, executioner with zero accountability against parents whom they call clients. They consume huge public resources and create massive social problems. Human nature of kindness to children and families in need is their weapon of choice. They stop at nothing to remove children to enhance job security and business opportunities. The only crisis of faith is when their hideous business is being scrutinized by the media and their financial interest is at risk. Welfare of children never really matters. Using sophisticated propaganda like the video on the right, they boast their success and highly inflate the value of pseudo science while criticisms and failures are conveniently excluded. Absurdity becomes palpable if it is inculcated by constantly repeating it with an air of great solemnity. Instead of their incompetence, negligence, malice, faulty theories and oppressive methodologies, they blame the system, understaffing and insufficient fundings for what they did wrong. Most get away unpunished and manage to get more fundings after major heartwrenching atrocities hit the media. Recent CPS-created atrocities and CPS-related scandals cited below support the foregoing. Be mindful that these are only the tip of an iceberg among the mountains of atrocities in CPS infested countries. There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because government thinks it would be good for him. We, as a people, voice our rejection of state-sponsored child removal unequivocally and demand immediate abolition of CFCSA with no replacement legislation that grants similar general child removal authority based on bureaucratic opinion.

Power corrupts and attracts the corruptible. Absolute power unduly given to service providers attracts the absolutely corruptible. Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers alone and the righteous voices of people are ignored, suppressed or smeared. If JP's distrust of the Ministry in the surrounding circumstances is an unwarranted hyperbole, then the blind faith required to cultivate the foregoing is an unpardonable error because subservience suppresses rational inquiries, critical thinking, reasonable demands, objective judgments, ameliorative criticisms and freedom of expression in a free and democratic society.

“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Albert Einstein.

---

References

Related decisions from courts and Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia:

1. "2015 BCIPC 60" (13 October 2015)
2. "J.P. v. Plecas, 2015 BCSC 1962" (28 October 2015)
3. "J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCCA 480" (23 November 2015)
4. "J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCCA 481" (23 November 2015)

Media coverages:

• Sex-abuse case files frozen while privacy probe underway by Lindsay Kines, Times Colonist (12 August 2015)
• B.C. court tosses mother’s concern over review by Geordon Omand, Global News (28 October 2015)
• B.C. Court of Appeal allows father to be added as a party in government appeal of blistering decision by Charlie Smith, The Georgia Straight (24 November 2015)
• Report blames critics for ‘instability’ at B.C. Children’s Ministry by Ian Mulgrew, The Vancouver Sun (14 December 2015)