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

Introduction

The judgment J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216 (CanLII) handed down on 14 July 2015 (hereinafter known as the Judgment, where n in square brackets [n] denotes the paragraph number of this Judgment unless stated otherwise) is the next chapter of a high conflict matrimonial case involving sexual and physical abuse of children. Hearings took place between 2010 to 2015 in the provincial and supreme courts of B.C. in Vancouver. There will be one more round of litigation of costs and damages if no settlement is reached between the parties.

JP (the mother) and BG (the father) separated on 5 October 2009 after a decade-long relationship when she accused him of assaulting her and one of their four children, two boys and two girls, then 7, 5, 3 and 1 in 2009. Law and police protocol require that the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) be notified in domestic violence involving children. From our observation, JP and BG are Caucasian and were in their late-30's or early 40's in 2012. The date of child apprehension from JP was on 30 December 2009, just one day before New Year Eve. In the judgment J.P. v. B.G., 2012 BCSC 938 (CanLII), Mr. Justice Paul W. Walker ruled that JP shall have sole guardianship and custody of the children. The judge also recognized the emotional trauma and distress JP and her four young children had suffered from the apprehension and the separation they have endured since then and while the children have lived in different foster homes.

The Judgment focused on negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and misfeasance in public office. The essence of JP's claims is that the Director and MCFD's agents failed to assess and investigate reports of sexual abuse; wrongly apprehended the children and then misled judicial authorities during a subsequent apprehension proceeding and permitted BG unsupervised access to the children despite a supervised access order of the Supreme Court. BG was found that he had sexually abused his children during unsupervised access. In his 341-page long scathing judgment, Judge Walker held:

The Province (ie. all taxpayers in B.C.) is liable for misfeasance, breach of the standard of care, and breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the Director and her agents.
In addition to Mr. Strickland’s misfeasance, for which the Director is responsible, social workers, for whom the Director is also responsible, engaged in a wholesale disregard of their statutory mandate and the requisite standard of care expected of them to protect the children from harm.
The Director provided false and misleading information (in the Form “A”) to the Provincial Court to support the Apprehension and failed to correct or amend even though its social workers (depending on whom and at what point in time), knew or ought to have known it contained false and misleading information.
The Director delayed in delivering documents requested by another branch of government in order to process the plaintiffs’ claims for compensation. Her conduct was either deliberate or the result of gross neglect but in either case the conduct was callously indifferent to the children’s needs.
Ministry employees who gave evidence, who were involved with the plaintiffs, lost sight of their duties, professionalism, and their objectivity.
Immunity afforded by the CFCSA to good faith discretionary decisions is not afforded to the Director and social workers in this case.
The Director is required to pay for special costs of the First Trial in an amount that will be determined from further submissions.

In conclusion, the judge added that JP assumed and carried out the Director’s statutory mandate to protect her children. If it were not for her Herculean efforts, the children would now, through the fault of the Director, be in the custody of their father who sexually and physically abused them.

Court found misfeasance in public office

To our knowledge, this is the first Canadian case (but certainly not the last) in which the Director and child protection workers (also known as social workers in many jurisdictions) are found liable for misfeasance in public office. In common English, they acted in bad faith, knowingly used false information to remove children and hence abused their statutory child removal authority and the financial backings of tax dollars to commence punitive legal actions. Furthermore, the Judge determined in [819] that the Director failed to act in the children’s best interests and did not abide by her statutory mandate or her own policies. She acted in breach of the standard of care of a careful parent.

To those who find our allegations skeptical or radical, the findings of the Supreme Court in this case confirm our views and justify the merit of our cause. Being the first Canadian court case of misfeasance committed by service providers of the child protection industry (hereinafter known as the industry unless otherwise specified) does not imply that this is an isolated incident. Since our inception, we often encounter abuse of similar nature. This case indeed reflects the norm of the modus operandi in the industry. Most oppressed parents simply do not have the resources or the will to fight such formidable enemy in court. This explains why there are so few successful cases against child protection regimes, despite the frequent abuse from various breeds of service providers.

In our first hand experience, malicious removal to punish dissenting parents, fabrication of evidence (from exaggerations to outright lies), calculating schemes to alienate spouses and families, using the police to intimidate parents, abusing the legal process to keep removed children in foster care longer, mounting disturbing surveillance on parents and above all, destroying families - the backbone of our nation, are common in child protection regimes around the world. This case reveals just the tip of an iceberg. It is a wake up call to an apathetic society that state-sponsored child removal seriously jeopardizes our freedom, liberty and, ironically, the safety of our children.

Immunity afforded by the CFCSA to good faith discretionary decisions not afforded

Section 101 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA) protects any person (primarily social workers and other service providers) from personal liability for anything done or omitted in good faith when performing the power, duty and function conferred under CFCSA. The Province submitted that the doctrine of absolute immunity protects from liability the conduct of the Director and Ms. Feenie, whom acted for the Province as the Director’s agent throughout the legal actions (see [746]). Absolute immunity is a privilege available to judges. The Ministry's position has placed the status of social workers as high as, if not above, the judiciary.

It is noteworthy to remark that immunity afforded by the CFCSA to good faith discretionary decisions is not afforded to the Director and social workers (see [1086]). Namely, they are found malicious in exercising their child removal authority and carrying out their duties. The Director is also required to pay for special costs of the First Trial in an amount that will be determined from further submissions (see [1087]). It follows that the director and social workers involved should pay all court awarded costs and damages themselves. Their personal assets and government pension should be frozen pending settlement negotiation and court decision. Taxpayers should not be held liable for their misfeasance.

At the point of writing, there is no indication that disciplinary action will be taken against wrongdoers. When questioned by the opposition in the House, Minister Stephanie Cadieux used the classic evasive tactic by reciting the same official lines previously used by her predecessors. Trite sophistries like child safety is of paramount importance, child removal is a difficult decision social workers made and the process is lengthy are irrelevant to the questions asked and only prove lack of leadership. When asked by the media what action will be taken, she said that she is reviewing the case and rolled away on her wheelchair. Her best strategy is not to comment, provide as little information as possiblem lay low and wait until public attention dies down. It is quite likely that those found liable by Judge Walker will get a slap on the wrist, be transferred to another location and continue to do what they use to do in the near future. Laying criminal charges and holding them personally liable for costs and damages are wishful thinking.

This case supports our belief that politicians are sitting on a time bomb as long as child protection regime has the authority to remove children based on a bureaucratic opinion. Learn from the downfall of the Progressive Conservative government in Alberta in May 2015. Get rid of this structural corruption before this child protection racket sinks the government. Voters will remember and get rid of those who refuse to act in the next election.

Foster home run by Martha C. Castro

Foster parents play the important role of warehousing removed children by the industry. Judge Walker wrote on the evidence of the foster parent Martha C. Castro from paragraph [800] to [1008]. We have first hand experience with this foster parent in several cases. Martha Castro runs her foster home business at 229xx 123 Avenue, Maple Ridge, B.C., V2X 4E9. She is childless and lives there with her husband R. in a two-storey detached house. They appear to be in their 50's in 2015. They do not appear to be gainfully employed outside their foster home business, which they have run for at least a decade.

Maple Ridge is about 40 km east of the City of Vancouver. The Ministry often placed removed children far away from their original residence. This will inevitably create more fear and trauma to young children because they are in a new and unfamiliar environment. This also adds inconvenience to parents as they likely have to commute a longer distance to the meeting place during supervised visits. Be mindful that many oppressed parents do not have their own vehicle and have to rely on public transit. Failure to attend or arriving late in supervised visitations will be noted and misconstrued as evidence to suggest that parents have little interest to see their children. Most parents ended up losing their jobs due to frequent absence from work to see their removed children, usually once or twice a week for a couple of hours. When parents lose their income, it further strengthens custody order applications.

According to [1000], Ms. Castro ran a level one (of three) foster home, which was not designated to deal with children who were sexually abused and sat at the lowest tier in terms of supervision. If the children were suspected of having been sexually abused, then, according to Ministry documents, the children would have to be moved to a level 2 or 3 foster home and out of her care (resulting in the loss of revenue). Why JP's children were placed there? We will offer a reason later. She rejected out of hand the complaints of school teachers and staff that the children were undernourished and hungry. Ms. Castro blamed these comments on the complaints of the older children who simply wanted the same treats that their classmates enjoyed.

To the dismay of those who believe that foster homes are a known safe place, many foster children live in dirty environment and are underfed. The Ministry has likely paid foster parents a prescribed amount of money to provide basic necessities and food to removed children. The deficiencies arise because many foster parents would like to maximize their profit by minimizing costs. After all, no one will take any action even if foster children or their parents complain. The finding of undernourishment does not surprise us. It is just one of the less serious harm that removed children must endure in foster homes. Less fortunate foster children are raped (such as Foster Father Howard Smith of Scarborough) or killed (Sherry Charlie of B.C. in September 2002 and Lily Choy, a foster mother in Edmonton convicted of killing her 3-year old foster kid in 2007). While most foster parents use removed children as tool to make money, some use them as sex toys and an objective of abuse. The aforesaid examples are not extreme isolated incidents cited to smear foster parents. There are many cases like these worldwide. Empirical data in our pull menu are evidence of the foregoing. In their infinite wisdom, foster homes are often characterized as known safe place by many provincial court judges to justify custody orders made in favor of MCFD in CFCSA hearings.

Judge Walker found Ms. Castro to have been unreliable when giving her testimony. She was highly defensive, and at various times inconsistent on key matters when giving her evidence, calling into question her credibility (see [999]). Judge Walker's findings are consistent with our experience with her. In another case back in 2006, she called an oppressed mother whose removed children were placed in her care. Either of her own accord or conspiring with child protection workers who desperately wanted to get interim custody, she provoked a fight, recorded the phone conversation, misconstrued what had transpired and the Ministry used her "evidence" to prove anger control problem in court. Incidentally, one of the law firms representing the Ministry in the 2006 case is also involved in this case.

On another count, JP alleged that Ms. Castro was using corporal punishment (see [800]). She failed to arrange JP's children to participate in their pre-apprehension recreational activities including gymnastics on her belief that there was no time or need for such activities. Castro's position was accepted at face value by Ms. Allen who was the social worker in charge of the day-to-day aspects of the children’s care (see [826]). In another case we have encountered involving Castro, she also canceled all extra-curricular activities of removed children that they enjoyed while in their father's care.

Alberta Human Services Minister Dave Hancock and service providers damage control propaganda in November 2013 after the media uncovered under reporting on the number of death of foster children. Using circular logic, Alberta's foster parent association representative Katherine Jones demanded that foster parents be given some positives because they are the best.

In view of the corruption, siding with the industry is a big political mistake that contributed to the downfall of the 44-year old Progressive Conservative dynasty in Alberta in May 2015.

If the B.C. Liberal government continues to protect perpetrators in this case, it risks going down in the next election. CPS is bad news to MLA and nightmare to parents.

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.

Foster parents are expected to support the Ministry's position in order to retain their contracts and obtain future, possibly more lucrative contracts in reward for their efforts. As Judge Walker noted in [1000], there was financial motivation for foster parents to conceal or minimize negative behaviors of the foster children that could potentially result in moving kids to another home. Ms. Castro was earning $5,500 per month net of tax to warehouse the four children for 2.5 years. Note that this rate is substantially higher than the foster care rate in New Jersey of $713 per month per child in the TV documentary on the left. Few foster parents pay tax on income earned from warehousing children. They believe that this is child care expense reimbursement and therefore should be tax free. If MCFD does not issue T4 to foster parents, Canada Revenue Agency will have difficulty to prevent tax evasion. Furthermore, her earning of $5,500 per month (or $1,375 per child each) is inconsistent with the current Foster Family Care Home Monthly Rates of $909.95 for type 1 children. The discrepancy of $1,860.20 is an overpayment per month that MCFD owes all taxpayers an explanation. Alternatively, if the linked Foster Family Care Home Monthly Rates does not contain the most up-to-date information, why does the MCFD conceal the current rates to misinform the public?

Court transcript cited in [1003] suggests that Ms. Castro's proficiency in English is low. It is unlikely that people of her caliber could earn this level of income elsewhere. Judge Walker found her defensive approach to any negative aspect of the children’s behaviour while in her care resulted from her concern that if she were blamed it could impact upon her contractual relationship with the Director (which resulted in earnings for her of approximately $5,500 per month net of tax). This is consistent with our belief that many, if not most, foster parents are warehousing removed children for money. Those who open their homes to children in need are minority, perhaps extreme minority. If you don't believe, tell the government to pull the plug. The Ministry's lawyers will be the first to walk, followed by most of these love-abundant foster parents.

Next to her high ill-earned income from taxpayers, the most disturbing finding is her attitude towards regular masturbation of the eight-year old child BTG (as of 2010) in her care (see [1003]). In our opinion, her act amounts to corrupting children, which is a criminal offence under Section 172 (1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. However, Subsection (4) of this section stipulates that No proceedings shall be commenced under subsection (1) without the consent of the Attorney General, unless they are instituted by or at the instance of a recognized society for the protection of children or by an officer of a juvenile court. Will the Attorney General or MCFD act?

Furthermore, she refused to acknowledge concerns expressed to her by the older children’s school teachers and administrative staff about their behavior, including their fighting, malnutrition and bruising. These disturbing behaviors are often found in foster children who have been forcefully removed from their parents. If these happen to children under parental care, they will be removed. This demonstrates a double standard on part of child protection workers towards child abuse in parent and foster homes. They often turn a blind eye on the latter.

Lastly, [1008] stated that Ms. Castro was clearly sympathetic to BG (the sexually abusive father). Knowing that Judge Walker had issued a “strict” no contact restraining order against BG in May 2012 prohibiting direct or indirect contact with the children, she contacted BG via Facebook and violated the no contact order. The judge found her explanation that she did so as part of her “hobby” to find out information about parents whose children were in her care lacks credibility. She also thought that JP should go to jail if she showed up at the foster home. Foster parents frequently call police for help on the perception that parents should go to jail if they happen to be in the proximity of foster homes or bumping into them at public places. This self-righteous habitual tactics are self-serving, paranoid and cowardice. Many, if not most, foster parents are merely lapdogs that echo of the Ministry's position. They warehouse children for money and are prepared to run extra miles to please the hands that feed them - child protection workers, who have the authority to broker lucrative foster care business. JP's children were placed in the Castro foster home for a reason. It is one of the most popular foster homes that child protection workers use when they have a weak case. The objective is to get one more finger pointing at JP that she is an unfit mother.

More information on foster homes can be found in a separate page titled "Foster Home and Child Removal".

Lessons Learned

Most readers wonder why the director and social workers are so hostile to a single mother like JP whom they are supposed to help. The Judgment found no direct evidence that Mr. William Strickland (a MCFD team leader at the time during the removal) specifically intended to injure either JP or her children through his conduct because he was not cross-examined about it. (see [585]). It seems that Judge Walker would leave the trial of mens rea to a criminal court.

In most cases we came across, many service providers are hostile to fathers, rarely mothers. They often drive a wedge between husband and wife and instigate divorce by using children as pawns. However, JP made a fatal decision to confront Mr. Strickland and accused him of acting inappropriately by writing a letter to clear BG of the allegations of physical abuse of one of the children, KG (see [9]). This is more than sufficient to antagonize these god-like creatures who have little tolerance of criticism from parents whom they call clients. Many, if not most, service providers will not stand even the slightest disagreement or being looked at in the wrong way, let alone challenge.

Ian Mulgrew of The Vancouver Sun reported in his news article "With appointment, children’s minister thumbs her nose at child advocate" on 25 July 2015 that the representative of children and youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond has said the sex abuse (of JP's children) was not reported to her and that she wants the investigation reopened.

This casts doubt on the integrity of the statistical data published in the Critical Injuries and Deaths Reports of children who were "in care" or receiving reviewable services from MCFD. "Unreported Deaths of Albertan Foster Children" uncovered in November 2013 proves that government would conceal embarrassing information.

As we have noted in Leah and Steve Flagg child removal case in Kamloops (2010), many child removals occur on weekends, Mother's Day, Christmas Eve, News Year Eve. Removals on joyful holidays will exact maximum emotional punishment on both parents and children. In this case, the date of removal was selected on 30 December 2009, just one day before New Year Eve. Do not think that removal will not happen at inconvenient hours and around holidays. Seasoned child protection workers know that most lawyers are not available to provide immediate advice to JP after the ordeal. The scheme is calculating.

Oppressed parents often find that vital information that does not support the Ministry's position is conveniently lost or missing in their MCFD file. [220] and [252] are counts of this nature found by Judge Walker. Furthermore, information favorable to parents is often arbitrarily undermined by child protection workers in court. [232] and [283] record counts of this nature.

Notes and information that could backfire on child protection workers are often not maintained, documented, registered or deliberately concealed in the Ministry's information system (MIS). [318] and [200] are counts of this nature.

There are less culpable characters in this trauma who played a more passive role in the persecution of JP by failing to rectify Strickland's misfeasance through omission or breach of fiduciary duty. Although we have not yet met one, we believe that there are "good" workers around. However, this case proves that the presence of "good" child protection workers is insufficient to fix the corruption, rendering the corruption structural. Often, there are two consequences that could happen to "good" workers in the industry. They either go with the flow and become equally corrupt or be ousted by their colleagues. Only birds of the same feather stay.

Alleging that parents are mentally ill or unstable is a common ruse used to justify child removal. Parents are compelled to undergo degrading psychological assessments of MCFD paid psychologists to prove their mental normality. Be mindful that many parents are driven to distress after child removal. Signs of ministry-created distress are often used to support mental disorder.

Wrongful child apprehensions happen much more frequently than any Canadians would believe. [1072] is a count of this nature rarely found in any court document. The sad realty for parents is that there is no penalty provided in CFCSA to punish those who abuse their child removal authority. How many parents could afford the legal costs to go to court like JP for almost 3 years to seek justice? D.L.H. v. M.J.M., 2011 BCSC 1228 is a failed attempt of another misfeasance in public office lawsuit filed by a mother who represented herself in a 2011 proceeding in Chilliwack, B.C.

On 29 March 2012, the Director withdrew child protection concerns about J.P. However, the children could not be immediately returned to their mother’s care because of the need for appropriate reintegration after having been kept in foster care for so long. They remained in foster care (see [1075]). This suggests that even when court agrees to return children to parents, it may not take place immediately. The shortest re-removal without new evidence we have seen is 15 minutes after a judge ordered return of a child to her mother. The judge who ordered return was furious after the mother went back to court to report contempt of his order. The judge said that his hands are tied due to the statutory power of child protection workers. This confirms that they have more power than provincial court judges in child removal matters.

In addition to re-removal with or without new evidence, there are many schemes a child protection regime could use to delay or refuse return of children ordered by court. [20] is an example of blatant disobedience of court order. Of course, bureaucrats cannot be charged with contempt of court and receive no reprimand. Lack of deterrence encourages bureaucrats to act blatantly outside their authority for purposes other than child protection.

The photo above was taken when Gestapo-like child protection workers (in plainclothes) and the police demanding entry of a B.C. residence without warrant in July 2011.

Another harm on removed children not covered in this case: excessive and unnecessary use of psychotropic drugs just to control them.

The scenario described in [718] is common to many oppressed parents who face police intimidation masterminded by child protection workers. This reveals how scared police resources are often abused by child protection workers and foster parents to harass parents. We have witnessed child protection workers telling court sheriffs that a father was carrying weapons when attending court each and every time. The worker demanded that his "client" be searched prior to entering the courtroom. Of course, sheriffs found nothing each time. Due to the punishing legal actions commenced on the father, he had to attend hearings frequently. After several times of fruitless searches, the chief of the sheriff saw the abuse and was sympathetic to the father. He told the father that this was all masterminded by the child protection worker in his case. The office of the court sheriff has no choice but to do whatever child protection workers ask them to do. The father was told to just come to his office and say hi next time. The chief will tell the child protection worker that he had been searched.

Furthermore, requests of police escort service when conducting their hideous business of child removal and supervised visits are occurring on a daily basis. This cowardice and self-serving demand inevitably diverts scared police resources to support their non-productive activities (and frankly counter productive in most cases), impedes normal police business and adds more tax burdens to society.

Another enlightening finding of the Judgment is the failure of the Provincial Court to provide adequate check and balance to ensure that child protection workers are acting in good faith and child removal is justified at an early stage. In the Section 35 presentation hearing (known as the “Apprehension Proceeding” in the Judgment) that took place in early January 2010, the Director’s report to the Provincial Court, outlining the circumstances leading up to the Apprehension, contained significant omissions and inaccurate and misleading factual information (see [18]). Relying on the accuracy (or the inaccuracy to be more precise) of the information reported by the Director, the Provincial Court made interim custody orders that permitted the Director to provide BG access to the children (including unsupervised access) in the manner and nature that the Director determined in her discretion was appropriate (see [20]).

This confirms our view that many provincial court judges are rubber stamping MCFD's decisions in Section 35 presentation hearings. They hold that the threshold of proof is very low under the statute (CFCSA). It is considered akin to a preliminary inquiry to determine prima facie evidence in criminal law. The main objective of this summary hearing is to ensure that removal is not arbitrary. Of course, the Ministry will argue that the removal is justified. If parents argue that the removal is arbitrary, there is a conflict on evidence.

In a Section 35 hearing in 2009, the Honorable Judge Therese Alexander (a provincial court judge in New Westminster and Port Coquitlam) gave the following oral reasons ([3]) for judgment:
"If there is a conflict on evidence at this stage (an interim custody hearing under Section 35), it must be resolved in favour of the Director for a more thorough investigation at a full hearing."

There are discrepancies or conflict on evidence in most litigations. This is precisely one of the main reasons why a hearing is needed to determine which version is more reliable. If the court must rule in favour of the Ministry when such discrepancy arises, why bother to have a hearing to begin with? Taxpayers will be better off if the Ministry's decisions are final. This absurd judicial attitude has:
1. failed to provide fair and prompt adjudication on state-sponsored child removal (be mindful that the earliest possible Section 35 hearing is already 3 to 4 months after removal, this is too long for most parents);
2. prolonged separation of children and, inadvertently or not, supported the best interests of service providers in the industry;
3. effectively turned the judiciary into a very expensive rubber stamp (be mindful that each provincial court judge is currently earning almost aquarter million in wage and benefits plus perks each year in B.C.) and failed society's expectation to protect families from government abuse.
Using circular legalobabble like erring on the side of caution, interim custody orders are often made in favor of the Director when there is a conflict on evidence at the presentation hearing stage. Modus operandi in Section 35 presentation hearings creates an appearance of prompt and fair post-apprehension hearing but completely violates the constitutional legal principles outlined in [382].

To further support the above argument, MCFD stands a 98% chance of success in getting interim custody in Section 35 hearings in 1999 to 2001. Parents stand a 2% chance of having their children returned with a supervision order (namely, the child protection file is still open and social workers may remove your children anytime if they think that the order fails to “protect” the children) and no chance to get their children back without a supervision order (a total victory from the parent’s perspective). These empirical data imply that either social workers are extremely accurate in making child removal decision and/or the family courts are kangaroo courts.

The judiciary fails society's expectation and statutory requirement of making impartial, independent and timely decisions in child protection matters. Relying on information provided by self-serving service providers in the industry to make judicial decisions is irresponsible, inappropriate and unfair. Contrary to the guiding principle of CFCSA, the best interests of children are not served. CFCSA is defective by design. It was made to serve the best interests of service providers under the pretext of child protection. More information on the flaws of CFCSA are covered in a separate web page.

Judge Walker found that the Ministry's workers deliberately disobeyed court order in this case. In particular, the Director permitted unsupervised access of the father BG despite a Supervised Access Order was issued pursuant to the Divorce Act. Judge Walker is of the opinion that in the particular circumstances of this case, the subsequent Provincial Court orders issued under the CFCSA granting the Director the discretion to provide supervised access to B.G. did not supersede or vary the Supervised Access Order (see [642]).

Many who have dealt with MCFD's social workers would agree that they often disobey provisions of court order and violate the guiding principles in CFCSA. Most common of these contradictions are reducing or canceling access of removed children at will, moving children among foster homes frequently, ignoring injuries of removed children sustained in foster homes.

In addition to the foregoing, the Judgment establishes another legal principle that could somewhat reduce the absolute authority of child protection workers. [621] concludes that there is no merit that the CFCSA is a complete code that ousts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in terms of child protection matters. This is a defeat on the Ministry's attempt to confine its legal game within the provincial court level where judges are more likely to agree with the Ministry's position and rubber stamp decisions proposed by child protection workers. Be mindful that most child protection hearings take place in provincial courts where the Ministry's lawyers and workers have established rapport.

The costs and the court award damages are all paid by taxpayers. To those who do not think that corruption in the child protection industry concerns them, think again.

MCFD's response: hiring Bob Plecas

High-level public servant Bob Plecas to lead independent review (from CHEK News 24 July 2015)

The creator of MCFD during the Glenn Clark era is hired to review his own benevolent creation that ironically has destroyed many families. From June 2007 to January 2015, 689 BC children died, another 1,835 critically injuried while receiving services from MCFD.. MCFD provides a platform of racketeering. Under the pretext of child protection, billions of tax dollars have been extracted by service providers who imposed their unwanted services on many families.

Ten days after Judge Paul Walker handed down his judgment, Minister Stephanie Cadieux announced on 24 July 2015 that respected former civil servant Bob Plecas has been hired to lead a review process. The objectives 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. Mr. Plecas will be joined by panelists to be nominated by the Child Welfare League of Canada. The panel has a mandate to review policies, legislation and standards that were in place at the time of the case, from 2008 to 2012, to review records and ministry actions and make recommendations. Mr. Plecas will submit his report to the government on 13 October 2015.

Few people outside the B.C. government have heard of the respected former civil servant Bob Plecas. Child removal was the mandate of the now defunct Ministry of Social Services prior to the founding of the MCFD. According to Veteran public servant has seen governments come and go by Vaughn Palmer, Mr. Plecas was hired by the former NDP Premier Glenn Clark to set up a stand-alone ministry for child welfare (MCFD) in the early 1990's. He spent more than twenty years in the B.C. government as a career civil servant. He served under six premiers, in both Social Credit and NDP administrations, as deputy minister for some twenty-five ministers in ten portfolios. He is the author of over twenty major pieces of provincial legislation and lives Victoria, British Columbia. His remarkable work history in government proves that he is a survivor. A successful survivor in a civil servant career often means that he is very amenable to the needs and likings of his political masters. His success in dodging house cleansing during changes in government of different political orientation support the foregoing. CFCSA could be his creation. He is now hired by the Ministry to lead a review panel on the parasitic monster he created. Is it likely that he will be objective and recommend measures that could curb government power and growth in bureaucracy?

To further mitigate the chance of getting a damaging report, the scope of Mr. Plecas' review only covers period from 2009 to 2012. This shrewd limitation eliminates all damaging findings Judge Walker stated in related judgments, including the one handed down on 14 July 2015. This almost guarantees that the Plecas review will be a slap on the wrist. If orchestrated carefully, the industry could turn this into an opportunity of getting more fundings.

Furthermore, the Child Welfare League of Canada consists of more than 140 members (as of July 2015) in all provinces and territories. These member organizations include a wide variety of government service agencies (including MCFD and its counterpart Alberta Human Services which got caught of under-reporting deaths in Albertan foster homes), community groups, provincial/territorial governments, associations, universities and child advocates. They all carry a child welfare banner and most, if not all, obtain fundings from various levels of government. It is safe to contend that their livelihood depends on state-sponsored child removal. Will these panelists bite the hands that feed them?

The Plecas appointment immediately attracted criticism from BC’s Representative for Children Youth (RCY), Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond. She published a statement in response to government's review announcement saying the Minister is wrong. In the news article "With appointment, children’s minister thumbs her nose at child advocate" (written by Ian Mulgrew in the Vancouver Sun on 25 July 2015), Children and Families Minister Stephanie Cadieux added oil on fire by alleging that the RCY is not suitable for the job because she has exhibited bias. Turpel-Lafond who openly said that she is not impressed with Cadieux's wrong decision. She will monitor Plecas’ work on the case and is still considering using her own powers to investigate as well.

The farce reached its climax when a pseudo watchdog is going to monitoring another government appointed pseudo watchdog to review policy. We have shared our view why we think the RCY is a pseudo watchdog in a separate web page titled Representative for Children Youth. The fight between the RCY and the MCFD creates a good guy and bad guy scenario that diverts media and public attention from the real issue in the child protection industry. It is the child removal authority that creates all these problems, corruption and racketeering. How could the JP case possibly happen? It is because child protection workers have the power to remove children as they see fit without any good evidence, due process of law and, above all, without fear of personal repercussion. This case is not about a bad judgment call of placing children in the wrong hands but a child protection worker's misfeasance to sabotage a mother for whatever personal reason(s) he may have. In another words, JP's children are used as pawns in a retaliation scheme. We often encounter cases like this when assisting parents with children removed. The system is defective by design to allow abuse of power, using children as pawns in racketeering and collusion among service providers in the industry to fabricate just cause in removing children. On the surface, child safety is often portrayed as of paramount importance to garner support from the gullible public. In fact, job security and the financial interests of the industry and protection of service providers always take priority.

Bob Plecas is a longtime civil servant who created the MCFD and the CFCSA. In our opinion, he is more likely to be biased than the RCY. He will see bureaucratic modus operandi eye to eye in a tunnel vision. Will a pot call a kettle black? Have his own children been removed before to give him first hand experience to appreciate what the Ministry does and the impacts of state-sponsored child removal on the receiving end? Will MCFD select someone who may recommend something that could jeopardize its power, the financial interests of service providers and the longevity of the child protection industry?

Stephanie Cadieux remains the minister of MCFD after the mini cabinet shuffle on 31 July 2015. This implies that her damage control measures receive support from Premier Christy Clark and her cabinet. Events unfolded suggest that government wants to dance in circle and produces review to tell us what they want us to believe. There is no political will to solve the problem. Voters are watching and will remember those responsible of failing to take the right actions in the next election.

JP spoke of torments and continuous MCFD harassment on the news

JP spoke of of torments and continuous MCFD harassment in the Vancouver Sun on 31 July 2015. Her voice was altered to protect her identity. Retaliation from CPS is common when parents go public and expose the corruption and racketeering. The video below confirms the foregoing.

On 31 July 2015, the 42-year-old mother JP finally spoke in an interview by The Vancouver Sun "Fallout of abuse torments mom and children" (by Vaughn Palmer). She further revealed the following:

Contrary to what child protection workers alleged in [189] of J.P. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services), 2013 BCSC 1403 (CanLII), parents with children removed suffer unspeakable emotional and financial hardship. JP said, “Before all this happened, people used to say I looked 10 years younger than my age. Now I look older than my age because of the stress of the last six years. I have the grey hair; it’s been terrible, really.” Most parents who have children removed could echoed her view. It is just common sense that parents and children are traumatized during and after child removal. Child protection workers are telling an outright lie in court to undermine the harm they create to society.

Like most naive Canadians, JP thought initially the ministry intervention was a good thing and having the kids in care would keep them safe from abuse. Of course, her horrific experience has opened her eyes to see the real nature of child protection.

JP said, “It’s almost as if people were scared to stand up to these people (MCFD's child protection workers) … even judges. What needs to happen (is) we need an independent body. It would be great for the Representative of Children and Youth to get involved.”

JP is right that most people fear them because of their absolute power to remove children. The documentary "Powerful as God" (2011 Ontario) speaks to this effect. No judge will openly say that they fear child protection workers. They don't fear them per se. But most of them do not want to make decisions that could jeopardize their job and the prospect of promotion to higher positions such as administrative judge or judge of a higher court. This explains why provincial court judges use absurd excuse like foster homes are known safe places to justify err on the side of caution and make custody orders in favor of MCFD.

Let's not lose sight that we are dealing with a very powerful cartel that has stakeholders at high places and has a substantial financial tie with state-sponsored child removal. There is too much money involved. The industry will fight back vigorously when challenged. People died trying to dismantle them.

On the other hand, she is wrong to put any faith on the RCY. Despite its critical appearance, RCY indeed beats the same drum of spending more tax dollars on the racket, which indeed serves the financial interests of the industry. None of the RCY published reports dares to investigate sensitive issues (like safety comparison of foster homes and parental homes) that could potentially shake the foundation of the industry. The real political function of this pseudo watchdog is to create an appearance of accountability and a political shield to fend off criticisms when public attention is drawn to the child protection industry. Our cynical view was confirmed by MCFD's counterpart in Alberta in November 2013.

On 20 July 2015, she 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. It appears that MCFD is looking for an excuse to re-remove her children. Such anxiety is common among parents under MCFD scrutiny. This is not to suggest that parents have something to hide. What they fear is the abuse of absolute power to remove children and fabrication of evidence to justify intervention. Retaliation is common when parents disagree with the Ministry's position or after winning a court case.

JP also voiced her concerns of the Plecas' appointment is to whitewash MCFD's wrongdoings in her case. The judge had over 275 days of hearings. A bureaucrat without subpoena powers, without full access to all the documents is hired to water down the judicial decision. She correctly assessed that if there was a more in-depth investigation, far more would be found wrong in the Ministry. In our view, her case just reveals the tip of an iceberg. But the Plecas review panel is nothing but a cover up attempt.

Absurdities in this case

Most Canadians who have not dealt with child protection workers (or social workers) before may find that breach of fiduciary duty and misfeasance in public office of MCFD employees absurd. Some may think that those found liable are some rare bad apples that caused an isolated incident. In view of the modus operandi, absolute power and access to the deep pocket of taxpayers, the court findings are not absurd at all. In our experience, the findings are indeed the norm in many cases.

What we find absurd are the following:

While the victims (JP and her children) live in poverty after the lawsuit, perpetrators who should face criminal justice are still not charged, especially BG (the father), who said that Judge Walker should disqualify himself from sitting as the trial judge on the basis that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias ([1] of J.P. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services), 2013 BCSC 515 (CanLII), a related judgment handed down 26 March 2013). At the point of writing, government employees found liable of misfeasance in public office are still employed by the Province.

In [189] of J.P. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services), 2013 BCSC 1403 (CanLII) (a related judgment handed down on 2 August 2013), child protection workers alleged that removing children from their home and their custodial parents would not cause them upset or compensable harm. Judge Walker is not clear whether this allegation given during oral submissions applied generally or in the JP's case. This absurd allegation suggests that those who made it are desperate.
Hiring a longtime civil servant who created MCFD is an absurd but devious political decision aiming to create a seemingly impartial report that undermines the harm of state-sponsored child removal and permits the child protection industry to continue its business, perhaps with more power and government fundings. If you want to reconstruct a building collapsed due to structural design problems, will you use the same architect?

Contrary to public belief, the only true beneficiaries in the industry are service providers. Protection of vulnerable children is occasional but highly publicized by pro CPS propaganda when it happens. The only parties who walked into the courtroom without getting paid are the parents and our volunteers. Despite who wins or loses, taxpayers are always an indirect victim. Some of the Ministry's lawyers may charge up to $400 plus taxes per hour for legal services rendered. Including court costs, it is safe to contend that this case alone could easily cost taxpayers $10 millions in the last 3 years. Racketeering has compelled government to continuously look for more revenue and/or to reduce other essential services to finance the lifestyle of service providers. Toll fees on bridges, ever rising medical insurance premium, gasoline taxes, property transfer tax are results of failure to curb racketeering.

It is noteworthy to add that legal expenses are not found in MCFD's budget. It is shrewdly hidden under the books of the Ministry of Attorney General. Tax dollars wasted on mounting surveillance on parents to fish for incriminating evidence, damages paid to various parties victimized by state-sponsored child removals are all hidden somewhere in the books of the provincial government.

The lawyer acting for the plaintiffs did not render his service pro bono publico either. The industry plunders parents and milks them dry in no time. There are indications that JP had spent over $100,000 in legal fees and is now relying on food banks. To her, justice is a very expensive commodity. She was compelled to spend all she had to protect her children from the abuse of their father resulted from bureaucratic wrongdoing and malicious persecution. After suffering unspeakable horror from the MCFD, she is enduring ministry-created hardship. As Judge Walker concluded at the end of his judgment, JP assumed and carried out the Director’s statutory mandate to protect her children.

Conclusions

Tactics that child protection workers frequently used on parents have been documented in our site for years. Some may think that these despicable tactics are fictitious or are biased exaggerations intended to embarrass the Ministry. This is the first time a supreme court judge has identified and affirmed many of these tactics very clearly.

We are grateful that the Judgment is widely covered by the media that placed emphasis on the Ministry's failure to protect children. It would be more informative to focus on the root problems that lay the foundation of structural corruption in the industry. Failure to protect is consequential. The essence of this case includes abuse of child removal authority, lack of accountability, inadequate check and balance that parents to seek prompt rectifications, financial motivation of service providers to prolong child removal and rally behind one another to support collective decisions, in this case a wrong decision.

MCFD creates jobs that appear to protect children. Child removal is instrumental in the industry. Under the pretext of child protection, self-serving service providers rip off huge amount of tax dollars by imposing their services on families by way of the rule of law. Motivated by job security and financial interests, they ruthlessly pursue parents and use children to beat them into submission. They define service quality standards, control the demand of their services and suppress criticism by using fear, lack of transparency and public apathy. Too much tax dollars have been placed in the wrong hands that often use the money on non-productive and counter productive activities.

Some child protection workers blatantly threaten parents that they own the police and the judiciary when trying to beat them into submission, often when coercing them to sign a custody agreement. Such arrogant brag is not a bluff. Various provisions of CFCSA oblige the police to act when requested by the Ministry, hence effectively reduce the police to a lapdog. While most child removals are accomplished with minimal force, they will taser parents to get their children at times (such as Misha Peterson on 22 September 2008 in Vancouver).

Child protective service is a global problem in most English-speaking nations. Child Aid Societies (CAS), MCFD's counterpart in Ontario, are creating the same problems and has attracted immense public outrage.

How about the judiciary? Did they get their fingers burned by the judiciary in this case? Most CFCSA matters are heard in provincial courts. We have seen many, if not most, provincial court judges are rubber stamps or strongly incline to rule in favor of the Ministry. Supreme courts are an unfamiliar battlefield to them. In "Director v. M.P., 2005 BCPC 651" (Docket: 2005-19226, Registry: Vancouver), Judge B.K. Davis ruled that temporary custody order made in favour of director when:

there is no third party complaint;
the director needs not to show that the child is in immediate danger; or
the removal is in the best interests of the child

Furthermore, the judiciary often allows res judicata (relitigation of settled matters in court). CFCSA empowers child protection workers to re-remove children with or without new evidence after a court rules return of children to parents. Many re-removals of returned children often occur after child protection workers fabricate excuses (such as a breach of supervision terms). Relitigation of settled matters are not restricted to the foregoing. Removal of the sister of a Templeton Secondary "hit list" teen in Vancouver, B.C., on 29 June 2009 opens our eyes to how the police and MCFD use two different statutes to litigate the same settled issue of safety in provincial court.

In view of massive empirical evidence suggesting state sponsored child removal harms more than helps, it is safe to contend that the child protection regime is the largest institutional risk to the safety of children. The aforesaid remark is qualified by the large number of deaths of removed children in foster care and attempts to cover up by under reporting deaths in foster care.

To rid government of corruption and racketeering, people expect and demand the government to do all of the following:

Admit wrongdoing and settle with JP and her children without further litigation to save tax dollars and grief of the plaintiffs.
Lay criminal charge of breach of corrupting children pursuant to Section 172 (1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 on Martha Castro for allowing and collaborating inappropriate masturbatory behavior of the eight-year old child BTG, hence endangering the morals of children under her care.
Cease indemnification and payment of legal fees of service providers including child protection workers.
Cease all financial incentives that motivate self-serving actions of service providers in the industry. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
- cancel the federal Children's Special Allowances (Child Tax Benefit equivalent paid to foster parents or agency)
- cancel foster care fees
- cancel generous payments to psychologists who assess and counsel parents with children removed
- put all government child welfare program money directly in the hands of parents, not via third party service providers who have an opportunity to take a cut
Revoke general child removal authority per CFCSA immediately, outlaw state-sponsored child removal (except in life threatening and extenuating circumstances such as sexual abuse), and renounce MCFD's child protective modus operandi in a manner no less than the apology of residential schools on 11 June 2008.

Ex CPS worker gives reasons why we must fight CPS

A CPS Whisteblower exposes every evil aspect of Child Protective Services in just 10 minutes. More information can be found at Legally Kidnapped.net).

Some may think that the foregoing are too harsh. If you have seen the abuse of power, how children are traumatized, how child protection workers use children to blackmail their parents to admit guilt in court, no reasonable person would recommend one ounce of leniency on perpetrators. This fiasco will not end if government's actions are less than what we recommend. Do not let politicians, bureaucrats or the pseudo watchdog Representative for Children and Youth (RCY) to lead down the garden path by suggestions like putting more money in child protection (too much money has already been given to the wrong hands), getting a second opinion on allegation of bias or hiring a retired judge to lead a commission to investigate deficiencies. Corruption in the industry has gone far too serious. No meaningful reform could rectify the problem except reining in. This is the only option to restore accountability, uphold justice, protecting children and, above all, securing our safety and freedom.

This is another wake up call to Canadians. The Judgment names and shames perpetrators who abused their power in public office and harmed those they are hired to protect. Above all, it brings to the public's attention the full nature and scope of the child protection industry. Findings in the Judgment confirm many of our seemingly cynical views that many Canadians find unbelievable. This case is a typical example of how abusive child protective service (CPS) is and how vulnerable families are when scrutinized. Child removal authority can be used to target any individual like JP or groups of people (like the First Nation during the residential school era) for purposes other than child protection. By and large, removed children become state properties. Despite CFCSA obliges children's views be heard, parents and in most cases children have no say to determine their future. Social workers often become the mouthpiece of removed children and speak on their behalf in court. From a broader perspective, the Judgment confirms that an elected assembly could make laws that trample a man's rights as much as a tyrant.

This is global problem most notable in English speaking countries where governments have the power to remove children from their families based on a bureaucratic opinion. Oppressed parents from CPS-infested nations like the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Canada all have similar complaints. Nations with a colonial background often have high over-representation of Native children in foster care. This suggests that state-sponsored child removal is financially and politically motivated. Our views on this notion can be found in MCFD & The First Nation and the Stolen Generation of Australia.

State sponsored child removal is a systematic attack directed against a civilian population that causes enforced disappearance of persons. To create maximum fear and anxiety, most parents are prohibited to know the whereabouts of removed children. Children are forbidden to tell and parents are not allowed to ask. As far as parents are concerned, their children have disappeared. Their disappearance beyond doubt is caused by the state. Despite the fact that it is legalized by CFCSA, such act of wanton cruelty is inconsistent with the mainstream Canadian values of compassion, fairness and civil liberty. In our opinion, this is akin to crimes against humanity defined in Article 7 1 (i) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act S.C. 2000, c. 24.

Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they are ratified into law. Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency. When there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, there is abuse, corruption, subjugation and indignation. This is precisely what one will find in the industry. State-sponsored child removal has reduced humanity to the level of brute. It has no place in any civilized society, let alone a nation that ardently speaks of human rights, freedom and democracy. General child removal authority must be revoked and state-sponsored child removal be outlawed except in extenuating circumstances (such as life threatening situations and sexual abuse).

CPS-created atrocities occur daily. This case is the first abuse of bureaucratic child removal authority affirmed by court and will not be the last. Bureaucrats and the industry will see this Judgment as a curb on their power and lucrative financial interests. They will fight back tooth and nail against any ameliorative efforts. Fighting corruption is not just good governance, it is self-defense and patriotism. We hope that this unprecedented case will encourage more oppressed parents to rise and fight for their children, family and nation. Problems created by this dangerous cartel masqueraded as child protectors are far from over. Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor. It must be demanded by the oppressed. Families under CPS scrutiny have been torn apart. Many removed children lost their parents. Some were abused and died in foster homes. Our hearts and prayers go out to families that have been harmed by the industry. Service providers not only destroy our children and safety, they desecrate our values in family and upbringing of our children according to our heritage. They foul our beliefs and attempt to replace them with their self-serving rationale masqueraded as theory in social works. They trample our freedom under the pretext of child protection. Like the now renounced residential schools, history will eventually prove that they are wrong and will fail. Through ruthless persecution, parents are granted a chance to rise, renewed, united and to get back to the best of who we are. We will stand up against any power, however formidable it may be, with dignity, integrity and honor that built humanity. Act before your loved ones fall prey. Join us and help build a safer future for our children.