|
Q1. |
Given your limited resources, PAPA's services may only assist a very small number
of distressed parents. To help more effectively, is PAPA involved in any political
lobbying activities to rectify the root problem by reforming child protection law?
|
|
A1. |
No, PAPA is a charity organization. We only involve in the assistance of distressed parents. We understand that our limited resources won't help much. Our principle is to help with whatever we have and whomever we can. Every child we help bring home is a success. Abuse of authority by "child protection" social workers is a serious socio-political problem. This can only be resolved at the political level by reforming law and revoking, or at least severely restricting, the near-absolute child removal authority of social workers. However, lobbying activities are outside the scope of PAPA's charity mandate. If you see proper to voice your concerns politically, we encourage that you speak to your local MLA, get involved in politics or support a political party that is more pro-family in the next election.
|
|
Q2. |
I heard an allegation that the child protection industry is a lucrative business.
Most parents under the scrutiny of MCFD are underprivileged. They cannot afford the expensive foster parent, counseling and legal fees, ... etc. Social workers never earn an extra cent by removing more children. How can poor parents attract special interest groups to prey on them?
|
|
A2. |
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.
|
|
Q3. |
I can comprehend that special interest groups have the financial incentive to milk
the child protection system and prolong child protection cases for their self-serving
interest. To drag on child protection proceedings, it needs the cooperation
of the judiciary. Judges are impartial. They are not short of work.
How does it benefit judges by having more cases in their courtrooms and prolong child protection cases as long as possible?
|
|
A3. |
This is a good question to ask and a dangerous one to answer. Political Science
Professor Stephen K. Baskerville of Howard University, Washington D.C. shed light
to this question in his article published in the Insight Magazine (June 18, 2001) where he answered whether or not family courts (in the U.S.) are prejudiced against fathers. In the 12th paragraph of this article, Professor Baskerville wrote:
| |
|
"The one great principle of the law," wrote Dickens, "is to make business for itself." Like all courts, family courts complain of being overburdened. Yet it is clearly in their interest to be overburdened, since judicial powers and salaries, like any other, are determined by demand for their services. "Judges and staff ... should be given every consideration for salary and the other perks or other emoluments of their high office," Judge Page suggests, adding that divorce-court judges should aim to increase their volume of business. "As the court does a better job more persons will be attracted to it," he observes. He also writes, "The better the family-court system functions, the higher ... the volume of the persons served." A court "does a better job" by attracting more mothers (who file the overwhelming majority of divorces) with windfall divorce settlements.
|
|
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.
|
|
Q4. |
Child protection hearings are civil in nature. In most cases, social workers
seek the custody of children and supervision orders to compel parents to do what
social workers see fit. They seldom seek financial compensation from parents
of their "services" rendered. How could social workers exact financial punishment
on parents?
|
|
A4. |
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.
|
|
Q5. |
The safety of children is of paramount importance to most Canadians who respect law
and order. Parents under the scrutiny of MCFD must have done something seriously
wrong. Otherwise, MCFD will not commit so much resources to pursue their cases.
It is acceptable to err on the side of caution as children under MCFD's care are
certainly safe. What is your view on this?
|
|
A5. |
We are unsure whether parents under the scrutiny of MCFD must have done something wrong. Given the low standard of proof, most parents are found guilty of abuse and child protection is needed. Furthermore, admission of guilt is often obtained after children were removed, ie. when social workers put parents under duress. In criminal law, incriminating evidence obtained when the accused was under duress from a person in position of power is inadmissible. However, admission of guilt obtained in this fashion is admissible in child protection hearings, rendering the administration of justice to disrepute. Judges tend to use erring on the side of caution as reasoning in child protection judgments. Statistics provided in MCFD's web site (http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/about_us/statistics.htm) confirm children under the "care" of MCFD are not necessarily safe. The fact that they died of accident, homicide and suicide does not support the proposition that foster homes are a known, safe environment, not until MCFD achieves a zero non-natural fatality rate. Some removed children are sexually abused, murdered or deprived of daily necessities (such as sufficient food and shampoo) in foster homes. While the safety of children is doubtful after they are removed, the mental damage is certain.
|
|
Q6. |
The judiciary is required by law to make child protection decisions on a timely basis.
Why some child protection cases take months, many take years, to settle?
|
|
A6. |
As discussed previously, the self-serving interests of special interest groups in
the child protection scheme partially explains why making child protection decisions
takes so long. Another reason is CFCSA allows MCFD to re-remove children without
a court order if MCFD considers children under supervision order is insufficiently
protected by the order. This could be done with or without fresh evidence. This
raises the issue of vexatious litigation. There are cases in which social workers
did not like the court decisions made and arbitrarily removed children again after
they were returned. The purpose is to seek relitigation with another judge (judge
shopping so to speak) and further punish the parents by abusing their near absolute
statutory authority.
|
|
Q7. |
If allegations, such as forcing parents to divorce, to admit guilt in court after
removing their children, to abort unborn child, are true and supported by tangible
evidence and credible testimonies, why don't these parents take their cases to court?
|
|
A7. |
There is no disciplinary provision in related statutes, such as the CFCSA and the
Social Workers Act, to punish torts of social workers. Even if a provincial court
judge finds torts on part of MCFD, there is not much the judge could do to punish
them other than denying what they seek. Relying on the Criminal Code to prosecute
these crimes is out of question as laying criminal charges require the approval
of Crown Counsel's office, usually initiated when a police report is filed, and
conviction will require the highest standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Although civil proceedings under common law are available, save and except several
wrongful deaths lawsuits in which removed children were killed under the "care"
of MCFD, most lawsuits filed against MCFD were unsuccessful. Above all, most oppressed
parents are underprivileged and are preoccupied by other problems such as poverty
and addiction to harmful substances. They lack the knowledge and resources to pursue
their cases legally. Moreover, they fear reprisal and lack evidence to substantiate
their claims. Be mindful that most social workers do not allow audio and video recordings
when interacting with parents.
|
|
Q8. |
Canada ardently advocates human rights and assistance of underprivileged groups.
Is the custody of one's own children a charter right?
|
|
A8. |
No. Contrary to popular belief, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does
not include or imply such fundamental right. So far the state's authority to remove
children has not been successfully challenged under the Canadian Charter.
|
|
Q9. |
Social workers have tremendous power over parents. I have children under 19
years of age. Will my participation in PAPA jeopardize my children?
|
|
A9. |
Possibly. Indeed, some legal counsels advise parents who managed to get their children
back from MCFD to move to another jurisdiction to avoid further persecution. Their
concern is well founded. As long as social workers function in their current mode,
your children are not safe and could always be a potential victim. Your support
to PAPA will at least assist some distressed parents in dealing with their ministry-created
trauma.
|
|
Q10. |
My children are over 19 or I have no kid. Why should I care?
|
|
A10. |
Think about your grand children or your loved ones who have children under 19. Above
all, PAPA is a charity striving to help distressed parents. Like supporting cancer
research, we don't wait until we have cancer. Take a proactive approach.
|
|
back to top
|
|
Q11. |
It appears that PAPA is compromising the government's child protection effort. Is this sedition?
|
|
A11. |
Absolutely not. PAPA is a charity aiming to help parents in need. Every thing we
do is and will be lawful, peaceful, ethical and honest. An elected assembly is not
always right and can trample a man's rights as easily as a tyranny. The activities
of some social workers are creating a potential source of social unrest and contradict
the fundamental Canadian values of human rights, civil liberty and natural justice.
A nation is built on families. Some social workers are destroying families, traditional
family values and a healthy social structure vital to national security and continuation
of civilization. Rectifying such damaging acts and assisting distressed parents
to restore their families are indeed patriotic and ameliorative.
|
|
Q12. |
I have read the CFCSA. It is quite impeccable. How could ministry-created
trauma possibly happen unless parents have done something seriously wrong?
|
|
A12. |
The legislative intent of CFCSA is good and some provisions appear to be fair to
all parties. However, both MCFD and the judiciary seldom follow the principles and
guideline in practice. For example, the MCFD director is supposed to bear the onus
of proof. In reality, parents usually bear the reverse onus in proving that they
are fit to raise their children [see paragraph [14] of Director of Child, Family and Community Services v. G.(R.), 2001 BCPC 32]. Removed siblings are supposed to be kept in the same foster home to minimize the trauma. If social workers claim that there are insufficient resources, placing them in different foster homes is acceptable in court and will not form grounds to return the children to their parents because MCFD failed to comply with the law. Other guidelines such as using less intrusive measures, respecting the linguistic and religious rights of removed children are seldom followed. Many removed children barely receive the basic necessities (such as food and shampoo) because foster parents maximize their profit by cutting costs. Supervision orders are only binding to parents. Social workers may remove children even if parents obey all the terms in the supervision order, raising the issue of vexatious proceedings. Reasonable ground to remove children may be a speculation or a mere perception of risk. Social workers interpret law to their likings and punish parents who do not obey their orders by removing their children. There is no disciplinary provision to deter wrongful or malicious removal. What the social workers do in real life is very different from what CFCSA implies or intends.
|
|
Q13. |
I am a realistic person. PAPA has limited resources. Will your effort
be futile?
|
|
A13. |
Possibly or perhaps probably. Providing organized assistance to distressed and marginalised parents is a challenging endeavor. We firmly believe that someone has to make the first move. "Evil prevails because good men fail to act." Our principle is to help as many parents and children as we can.
|
|
Q14. |
Many allegations in your web site are absurd and unbelievable. Do you have
any evidence supporting these cases?
|
|
A14. |
These testimonies are provided by parents who had first hand experiences with MCFD. Some are supported by tangible evidence such as audio and video recordings. The beneficiaries of the child protection industry employ a very successful strategy of using huge public resources to oppress a very small number of underprivileged parents under the pretext of child protection. These underdogs are unlikely to garner enough support to topple such notorious regime. The atrocities that some social workers created are incredible indeed. It is hard to believe that it is happening in the 21st century Canada on a daily basis. Frankly, if one has not encountered this before, it would be difficult to find these testimonies believable. Furthermore, many English-speaking nations are having similar problems as they have similar child protection law. Please check the web site links in our Archives page.
|
|
Q15. |
If I have decided not to support you, what else would you say to convince me to change
my mind?
|
|
A15. |
Imagine that your loved one falls prey to "child-protection" social workers. Given their statutory authority and the biased judiciary, it is likely that your loved one will be hopelessly helpless. When this happens, it will be too late for you to act. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We believe that most Canadians have a good conscience. We are counting on this to offer help to distressed parents.
|
|
Q16. |
I know some good social workers. They do not abuse their authority and are truly working for the best interests of children and families. Is your stereotyping ignorant and unfair?
|
|
A16. |
We have no doubt that there are some, or perhaps many, good social workers. We are also certain that some children are protected because of them in some extreme situations. However, one wrongful child removal and abuse is one too many. We can assure you that there are many cases of abuse of authority and wrongful child removals. Such state-sponsored atrocities should not have occurred in a civilized society. We aim to improve the child protection system, not target any individual social worker or special interest group.
|
|
Q17. |
I am with you. What support does PAPA need?
|
|
A17. |
Become a PAPA member, act as our volunteer, spread our messages
 and concerns to
people you know and encourage them to support our cause. PAPA needs financial support
by way of a free will donation (which can be conveniently done on our e Donation page via Paypal). Above all, bring the structural corruption of the child protection regime to the awareness of the public. Special interest groups fear public scrutiny most. This explains why child protection activities lack transparency under the pretext of child privacy.
|
|
Q18. |
I (or someone I know) would like to share my experience with MCFD. Is PAPA interested
to communicate with me?
|
|
A18. |
Yes, one of our objectives is to provide a forum among people who would like to share their experience, either good or bad, with MCFD. Please feel free to contact us.
|
|
Q19. |
Is racial discrimination a motivating factor in state-sponsored child removal? (asked by a Hong Kong TV News reporter)
|
|
A19. |
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.
|
|
Q20. |
I am a Christian. Romans 13:1-7 requires that I submit to authority. It is against my religious belief to disagree with the government. What do you say?
|
|
A20. |
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.
|
|
back to top
|
|
Q21. |
The government needs statutory authority to carry out its child protection mandate. If duly exercised, CFCSA gives the proper power to protect children by removing them from abusive parents. Reducing this statutory authority will compromise child protection. Do you have a better alternative?
|
|
A21. |
We are not against child removal per se and agree that the government should have some form of authority to remove children to protect them in some extreme circumstances. We are against the flaws of the child protection system and the abuse of authority of bureaucrats involved in child protection. Social workers are not trained to be law enforcer and hence should not be given law enforcement authority. Genuine child abuse is a crime and should be adjudicated in criminal courts. Should sufficient credible evidence warrants a no-contact bail order, abuser and vulnerable children are effectively separated. Social workers are then left to do what they are trained to do, namely to assist children and families in need. Giving social workers near-absolute power to remove children with low standard of proof and no disciplinary provisions to deter unbefitting behavior is dangerous, redundant and inappropriate. Of course, other flaws associated with the current child protection system require rectifications as well.
|
|
Q22. |
If PAPA's allegations of abuse of authority are really so serious, why politicians do not rectify the problem?(posted on March 10, 2008)
|
|
A22. |
Politics is more complex than what the public thinks. Politicians have different priorities and agenda. The following reasons may explain why politicians do not rectify the problem:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
|
|
Q23. |
I read an allegation that state-sponsored child removal is a crime against humanity. This activity is duly authorized by a statute and is certainly legal. Are you out of your mind? (posted on March 10, 2008)
|
|
A23. |
We are inaccurate only to the extent that this is a legalized crime against humanity. One of the prohibited acts stipulated in
Article 7 1 (I) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act 2000, c. 24 is enforced disappearance of persons. State-sponsored removals of children from their parents (in most cases against the will of both the parents and children), prevent the parents from knowing the whereabouts of their children, then using huge public resources to seek custody amounts to a systematic attack directed against a civilian population. This bears remarkable resemblance of the definition of crimes against humanity. Passing a statute called CFCSA to legalize child removals and allow many parents to be oppressed does not change the notorious nature of such acts. Many tyrants passed statutes to legalize and justify their barbaric acts, which the United Nations called crimes against humanity. It is the nature of the acts that matters.
|
|
Q24. |
If the problem of state-sponsored child removals is so serious, why the media does not air it? (posted on March 10, 2008)
|
|
A24. |
Like politicians, media has their own priorities and agenda. Editors are extremely cautious when it comes to uncovering sensitive matters against the government for the fear of lawsuits and Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) accusations of violating the Broadcasting Act. Furthermore, most parents cannot provide tangible evidence to substantiate their proof of oppression.
|
|
Q25. |
I am under MCFD's scrutiny for a child protection concern. Does it help if I move to another province? (posted on March 10, 2008)
|
|
A25. |
No, not at all. Unless you live the lifestyle of Robinson Crusoe, MCFD will track you and your children. The child protection agency of the province where you moved to will be notified soon. They will take over and continue the persecution. The escape option works only if you immediately move out of North America and reside in a country with no extradition treaty with Canada before social worker removes your children.
|
|
Q26. |
What obligations do I have once I become a PAPA member? (posted on March 10, 2008)
|
|
A26. |
Except believing in our cause and paying your membership fee, none. Unless you choose to become a director or a volunteer, you will not be asked to attend meetings, to do door-to-door solicitation, to protest on the street, ... etc.
|
|
Q27. |
If I support PAPA, it is likely that our effort will result in a reduction in tax? (posted on March 10, 2008)
|
|
A27. |
Not likely. Politicians, like most lawyers, are believers of pushing tax to the maximum that taxpayers can bear. Tax dollars saved from the elimination of harmful child removal activities will be siphoned by other activities.
|
|
Q28. |
Will anyone know that I become your member? (posted on March 10, 2008)
|
|
A28. |
No unless you tell other people. Your privacy and confidentiality of your personal information will be treated with upmost respect.
|
|
Q29. |
Parents scrutinized by MCFD have a serious credibility problem. No one would believe their testimonies. How can you convince a reasonable person to believe that they have been oppressed by child protection social workers who generally have a good social reputation? (asked by a well-known Vancouver lawyer who is also a city councillor on May 22, 2008, posted on July 3, 2008)
|
|
A29. |
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.
|
