Social workers don’t make more by removing more children. But they do secure their job by creating more cases, hence justifying the demand of their “service” and a budget to secure their employment. Furthermore, they have the power to make or break a family, to make parents laugh or cry. They may use this power without any fear of civil or criminal consequence. Satisfaction derives from the possession of such tremendous power cannot be measured in monetary term.

Most parents under the scrutiny of MCFD cannot afford the expensive fees involved in the “services” provided by MCFD. However, parents with children removed are entitled to legal aid if they qualify and most of them do qualify. Fees paid for psychological assessments, counseling, foster parents, supervised visit workers, lawyers are mostly paid by MCFD, or more precisely by taxpayers whose deep pockets are frequently abused. This forms an enticing incentive to various breeds of special interest groups. Fees incurred by both sides of child custody contestants are mostly paid by taxpayers. The huge budgets of MCFD and the legal aid program funded by the Ministry of Attorney General make the child removal industry lucrative. Monies originally intended to help children and families in need and to uphold justice end up benefiting self-serving special interest groups. This renders government child protection effort inefficient and often counterproductive.

We encourage you to read the entire article to see Professor Baskerville’s full views on family courts to find answer to this question. Professor Baskerville wrote extensively on injustice in family courts. His books and articles can be found in Dr. Stephen Baskerville's web site.

Judges were once lawyers.  A judge appointment is a dream job to many lawyers. Although judges no longer earn their salary based on billable hours, supply and demand of their service determine the security of their high office where they enjoy good salary, prestige, power, a regular business hours and immunity from all actions.

Unless social workers return removed children voluntarily, parents must go through the legal proceedings if they want their children back. With immense public resources at their disposal, social workers can launch numerous legal proceedings against parents who stand defiant to their commands with no fear of civil or criminal consequence. Save and except a few very rich people, most parents who do not qualify for legal aid will soon find themselves in financial distress as they have a huge legal bill to pay and will likely lose their jobs. It is because most employers will let go employees who frequently have to be absent from work to attend court hearings and to see their children in supervised visitations which usually take place during regular business hours. Financial punishment exacted is indirect, always claimed to be unintentional by social workers but very effective. Once the finance of parents is destroyed, social workers will have more ground to seek custody of removed children as parents now lack the financial means to properly support their children. This is a double-edge sword. Social workers have tremendous power over parents with children under 19 years of age.

MCFD removes children from all ethnic groups. We do not have any statistics or reliable evidence from oppressed parents suggesting that child removal is motivated by racial discrimination. We asked MCFD to provide certain statistical data in November 2007 for further research that may answer this question. MCFD provided some of the data sought in August 2008 after a formal application was submitted under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in mid May 2008. We do not have an answer to this question.

Having said the foregoing, an American article titled "The Overrepresentation of Minorities in the Child Welfare System" written by Lance Carroll II in the Journal of Undergraduate Research (Volume 6, Issue 7 - May June 2005) may shed some light on this issue in the United States. Furthermore, Human Resources and Social Development Canada (a federal department) published data on aboriginal children (First Nations, Inuit, Metis, Nisga'a) removed in British Columbia (Table 3.f Aboriginal Children in Care by Residence of Parents as at March 31, 1999, March 31, 2000 and March 31, 2001). In 2001, 3,534 aboriginal children were in government “care”. This amounts to 35% of the total number of 9,956 children in “care”. On a per capita basis, aboriginal parents attract the attention of MCFD 10 times more than non-aboriginal parents (see 2006 B.C. Budget published by Taxwiz Accounting & Consulting Inc.) In our opinion, this empirical evidence establishes a prima facie case to warrant further research on whether the government has targeted aboriginal families and/or a gross failure of Native Indian policy.

PAPA is a charity organization not affiliated with any religious group. We do not intend to use this web site to debate religious arguments. However, this question has been asked repeatedly by many Christians we come across. We feel obliged to answer.

Our detailed rationale arriving at our conclusion is linked here. In short, Romans 13:1-7 is a conditional premise. We do not believe that the Bible requests believers to blindly submit to authority. After all, PAPA is not anti-government. We respect and support our government. However, we believe that government is not infallible and should listen to its people for improvements as required in a true democracy.

It is noteworthy to remark that many Christians we come across appear to be more apathetic and reluctant to support our cause, which is entirely charitable in nature, than non-Christians. A faith is meaningless if its believers do not put their beliefs into action and practice them (in this case love and care that Christians and their pastors ardently speak of on Sundays) in their life. No wonder Jesus Christ told the parable of the good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37.

"For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." (James 2:26)

Live up to your faith. Don't just talk, please act.

1. Abuse of authority is so absurd that most people find unbelievable and will be dismissed as hyperbole by the media, court and government. Like the public, politicians do not believe that ministry-created problems exist or are serious enough to warrant immediate rectification. You probably have heard the media criticizing the insufficiency (such as lack of accountability and inadequate funding) of child protection effort, but not the abuse on parents.
2. Most oppressed parents believe that their effort to go public is futile. Like many sexual assault victims, they remain silent due to fear of reprisal and to avoid unwanted publicity.
3. Many, or perhaps most, politicians find the inconvenient truth of this nature politically distasteful and have nothing to gain by helping oppressed parents. Ameliorative reforms will attract criticism from the public (who fails to understand the root of the problem), the opposition party, the media and special interest groups as compromising child protection effort. They will make themselves unpopular before voters, unions and some professionals. Be mindful that oppressed parents and their sympathizers are few in numbers. Most of them are from the grass root society and have little or no influence. Although politicians are supposed to act to the best interest of people in theory, sweeping this inconvenient truth under the carpet is a more logical decision in practice. Some MLA do not return phone calls of their constituents if they are seeking help to fight oppression of this nature.
4. Most politicians are led by MCFD’s bureaucrats to believe that the current child protection system is working well. Complains from parents are ignored or whitewashed.
5. Not all social workers abuse their authority. Some of them genuinely help families in need. Successful cases of child protection are exalted to preserve the integrity of the system. This creates an illusion that effectively dilutes the intensity of the problem.

Parents under MCFD scrutiny indeed have a serious credibility problem. Most of them are from the underprivileged class. People tend to believe that government will not commit so much resources to pursue a case unless parents in question have done something seriously wrong to their children. They fail to see the underlying factors that drive various breed of special interest groups to zealously pursue removal of their children for their self-serving motives. In a credibility contest, parents are the underdogs.

Oppressed parents from English-speaking nations with similar "child protection" law are complaining about the same problems. Various authors and non-profit organizations around the world are voicing the same concerns about the abuse of authority in the child removal industry. These people do not know one another. The joint probability of so many people from different places and cultures "lying" on similar issues along similar lines is extremely low. Furthermore, some oppressed parents who dare to come forward and expose what they had encountered are accepting huge personal risk of reprisal and unwanted publicity on their past. Few would take this risk if there is no merit in their statements. Above all, if they do lie, they probably would find something more believable. Parents do present an evidence that demands a verdict. If society speaks of humanity and intends to assist marginalized social groups, no one should turn a blind eye to this issue.