Is Foster Home a Known Safe Place?

In Canada, many judges are of the opinion that foster home is a known safe place. Therefore, it is justified to err on the side of caution and make custody order in favor of the director of MCFD.

The decision "British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services) v. G.(R.), 2001 BCPC 32" (Docket: 92-3735, Registry: Vancouver) made on 29 January 2001 is typical to prove the foregoing. The Honorable Judge Jane Auxier ruled that:

She defined what is considered and not considered in presentation hearing. She erred on the side of caution and granted interim custody to the director (hence ensuring a prolonged separation between parent and children), alleging that foster care is a known safe place. Furthermore, cooperation (often defined as doing whatever "child protection" workers demand) with MCFD is an evaluating factor considered by court. Access of removed child is recommended but not ordered.

To evaluate the propriety of this rationale, it is important to examine whether empirical evidence agrees with the notion that foster homes are known safe place. News video footages on the right and the statistics below speak loud and clear.

• 41.2% of children (12-17) in care appear in youth court (Table 1 of this joint major study) versus 6.4% of general population, be mindful that children under the age of 12 cannot be charged of criminal offence in Canada;
• 24.5% of children in care graduate versus 74.4% of general population (Table 5 of this joint major study);
• 88.6% of children in care receive income assistance by the age of 19 versus 29.5% of general population (Table 7 of this joint major study)

How Do "Child Protection" Workers Use Foster Homes of Different Qualities?

Like other service providers in the child protection industry, there are good and bad foster homes run by people with different motives. Former foster mother Mary Callahan, who had been in the business for 20 years, confirms the foregoing in her testimony provided to us.

Many seasoned "child protection" workers are calculating and know how to use situations to their best interests. The following are our observations of how they use foster homes of different qualities:

1. Good Foster Homes

   However few they are, good foster homes are best used as a showcase to convince the public that there are substantial values in the "child protection" industry and less fortunate children are in better hands when in foster care.

   Good foster homes are also used to convince older children (those over 12 years of age) to remain in care when MCFD does not have a solid case for removal or custody application. Children who take the bait may be moved to other foster homes or be adopted out if MCFD obtains a continuing custody order. The risk of the latter is discussed at length in our "Adoption & Child Removal" page.

2. Average or Mediocre Foster Homes

   Most foster homes fall under this category where the primary motive is money. These homes are used as warehousing facility of removed children and a money making machine to foster parents who profess to be providing tender loving care homes to children in need.

3. Bad Foster Homes

   Bad foster homes can be characterized in many aspects, such as poor sanitary, physically or sexually abusive, or even murderous. The government certainly wants the public to believe that they do not exist, despite the fact that some removed children are repeatedly raped or killed when in care.

   Common sense may suggest that these homes are a liability to the Ministry and have no value to "child protection" workers. In fact, bad foster homes are often used to beat parents into submission. Few parents could bear to see the pain, the unexplained wounds and the poor living standard their children suffered in care. Defiant parents will become submissive when their children are placed in bad homes. Many are willing to admit whatever "child protection" workers want them to admit to get their children out of these homes. Of course, many end up losing their children permanently.

Why Removed Children Are Moved Around in Different Foster Homes?

Removed children seldom stay in one foster home. At the discretion of child protection workers, they are placed in different homes, sometimes far from the homes of their parents and the schools these children attend. They do not need approval from court or parents. We have witnessed some children shuffled to three homes in four months and some young children hauled to school by taxi not escorted by adult. Page 5 of "Trauma, Turmoil and Tragedy" published by the Representative for Children and Youth on 15 November 2012 reported that 49% of children in care experienced an average of 12 moves while in care. 5 of the youth were moved more than 30 times.

While Section 4(1)(c) of CFCSA defines the importance of continuity in the child's care as one of the best interests of child, one would find this hard to comprehend why removed children are moved frequently. Instable environment has drawn public criticism and judicial concerns.

Know that moving children around will attract unwanted attention, why do they do this? The following are some reasons that explain this phenomenon of the child protection industry:

• Many, if not most, foster parents run foster homes for money. To earn a decent living, they must keep certain number of removed children at any one time. Child protection workers act as business brokers. The more foster parents they can keep, the more die hard supporters they could create with tax dollars that they may spend at their discretion. To keep them in the foster home inventory pool, child protection workers must give foster parents financial incentive every now and then. This stabilizes a major special interest instrumental to the child protection industry.

  In order to make most foster parents happy, child protection workers must keep removing children and let all foster parents enjoy their share of the tax dollar pie up to the point that they will remain in the business. This will inevitably involve rotating children in different foster homes as the supply of children may not be enough in the region to allow all foster parents to be gainfully employed.



• As explained above, "child protection" workers use foster homes of different quality to achieve different objectives at different phases of their game. Hence, children are shuffled to serve this purpose.


• Not every foster parents agree with what child protection workers do. At times, there are conflicts of various nature between child protection workers and foster parents. We have been approached by some foster parents who wish to share their grievances. Like punishing birth parents, removing children from foster parents is often used as a weapon to exact financial punishment on those who dare to say no to these powerful bureaucrats. Disobedient foster parents will soon lose their business. Children in their care will be given to those who say yes all the times and do everything demanded by their masters. This may include calling parents to provoke a fight on the phone and record the conversation as evidence of anger control problem.


• Foster parents at times may need a break for holiday or have some problems with certain children and would like to have them replaced.


• Location of foster home may have been compromised by birth parents, often disclosed by removed children during supervised visits. Despite whether parents have done anything to recover their kidnapped children, this is considered a serious security risk. A typical response from MCFD is to apply for a restraining order prohibiting parents to approach the foster home, suspension of supervised visitation and phone access and move children to a different foster home.

  If child protection workers are serving their alleged purposes of helping and developing families in need, why would they expect their clients (as parents are often called) to pose any risk to them or to their partners in child protection industry?

Of course, there are other reasons for moving children from home to home, such as foster home closure and foster parents retirement, at odd times. It is noteworthy to mention that when challenged on shuffling children in court, judges seldom make a binding order to oblige child protection workers to keep children in a continuous and stable environment as required by law. Inadvertently or not, the judiciary fails to honor the spirit of law, in particular, Section 4(1)(c) of CFCSA.

Furthermore, some foster parents are so subservient that they are prepared to do whatever it takes to please child protection workers who have the power to broker foster care business to whoever they see fit. We have witnessed one foster mother who phoned birth parent, provoked a fight and recorded the conversation as evidence to support the Ministry's custody application. We are unsure whether she did this on her own accord to please child protection workers or on order from them. Money talks and conscience is often secondary. The lawsuit against the government from former foster mother Teresa Iezzi below speaks to this effect.

State-sponsored child removal activities expose taxpayers to lawsuits and contingent liabilities. Sometimes, MCFD's foster parents could end up suing MCFD (to be more precise taxpayers) for damages. A former foster parent in Burnaby, British Columbia, Teresa Iezzi, went public to The Province on May 11, 2009, just one day before the provincial election. She alleged that she contracted Hepatitis C from an attack of foster child under her care and her foster parenting contract was terminated by MCFD as a result of this. She is seeking apology and financial compensation of an unspecified amount from MCFD. It is noteworthy to remark that she was earning $7,500 per month, which was her main source of income while fostering children removed by MCFD. Assuming that her income was the same at the onset of her fostering business 22 years ago, she had earned $1,980,000 from taxpayers.

This lucrative industry has attracted many service providers whose primary interest is to make money. The well being of children is often irrelevant to them.

While government has turned on its propaganda machinery to convince Canadians to believe that children are better off in foster care, empirical evidence and research have proven the contrary. The following article contains the research results of foster care on children.

The following are empirical evidence provided by reports from various sources:

1. Children in the "care" of MCFD commit suicide, die of accident, are killed or abused (see MCFD's statistics). A web site called "Protected to Death by CPS" has been established in memory of children died when "in care" of "child protection" service.


2. According to a 2008 study by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond (Representative for children and youth in B.C.),
   • 44% of adolescents receiving services from MCFD end up facing criminal charges;
   • 36% of kids in care are going to jail;
   • only 24% of foster children finish high school.

   (Data source: Lori Culbert, Canwest News Service published: Thursday, 26 June 2008)

3. The table on the right contains 1998 U.S. statistics of risks (or maltreatment) of children in foster homes and in parental homes. Numbers speak for themselves. Contrary to what most judges allege in court, foster homes are not known safe place. Putting children in foster homes runs a much higher risk. It follows that to err on the side of caution, children should be returned to their parents in child protection hearings.


4. According to the Growing Up In B.C. report released by the Representative for Children and Youth and the Provincial Health Officer on 18 October 2009:
   • Children in care are nearly three times more likely to consider suicide – and nearly six times more likely to have attempted suicide at least once – than youth who have never been in care.
   • Aboriginal children and children in care are less likely to experience success in school.
   • Children in care are more likely to engage in risky behaviour, such as using tobacco, alcohol and drugs.
   • Children in care are more likely to have gone to bed hungry.
   • Youth in care consistently talked about the challenges they face in everyday life, such as creating and maintaining long-term relationships, having no-one to see them graduate, not having adult support or financial means to encourage them to do well in school or apply for post-secondary education.

Children died in the hands of "child protection" agencies of their governments are memorized in the web site below:

The victim in the Howard Smith trial breaks down leaving a Toronto courthouse in January, after Smith pleaded guilty to a sexual assault charge against her in 1978.

The following is noteworthy in this case:

1. Like in most child removal cases that attract unwanted public attention for various reasons, little information is available to the public. Service providers in the child protection industry have been very successful in lobbying law that prohibits dissemination of information under the pretext of protecting child privacy.
2. Removed children are often bounced around in different foster homes to ensure that enough foster parents are financially kept well off in the system.
3. In the dark era of residential schools, children pregnant by their care givers were common. Modern child protection is of no difference.
4. In the news article "Teen impregnated by foster dad failed by Children's Aid Society" published on 29 January 2013, author Michele Mandel of Toronto Sun wrote: "Her CCAS worker ignored her pleas to be moved. “Nobody would believe me over Mr. TTC inspector at the time,” she recalled. “They told me it was either there or the street.”" This is consistent with the experience from many foster children whose complaints of abuse in foster homes are often ignored until it gets out of hand.
5. Another appalling behavior often heard is the threat of retaliation if the victim dares to embarrass service providers or to uncover their wrongdoings. In this case, the victim was warned by her social worker that if she listed Smith as the father on the baby’s birth certificate, they would ensure her daughter was given to him. Terrified, the victim agreed to list paternity as “unknown” because no one was going to take away her baby. In April 2010, DNA tests confirmed the horrible story that for so long no one would believe.
6. Child protection workers at times are boastful of their legal knowledge with turns out to be wrong or intentionally misleading. In this case, the victim's CCAS supervisor laughed at her in 1998 and told her she could not bring charges against Smith because there was a statute of limitations. There is no time limit in criminal charges as long as the perpetrators are still alive. This could also be a ruse to discourage the victim from talking to the police.

Mary Callahan: Testimony from A Former Foster Parent

On the supply side of the equation, Mary Callahan is an emergency room nurse, cardiopulmonary nurse educator and a former foster parent. She is the author of "Fighting for Tony", "Memoirs of a Baby Stealer". She saw the corruption in the "child protection" industry and has given her testimony from a service provider's perspective.

Despite the presence of a small number of good foster parents, Ms. Callahan stated that there are more foster parents at the other end of the spectrum who foster for money and don't care at all about the children placed with them. For instance, the death of Alex Gervais in Abbotsford on 18 September 2015 is caused by his last foster parent who received $8,000 tax free income from MCFD and left Gervais in a hotel where he committed suicide. His death is just one of the many atrocities created by incompetent or irresponsible, or at times abusive, foster parents. This lends support to refute the judicial position that foster homes are known safe environment. Please click here to view her testimony.

Remarks

Foster parents are one of the true beneficiaries in the "child protection" industry. Statistics suggested that atrocities in foster homes mentioned in this page are not isolated incidents. It casts serious doubt, if not refutes outright, on the judicial allegation that foster homes are known safe place. It follows that erring on the side of caution to remove children from their families and place them in foster homes to protect them is an invalid and irresponsible proposition.

Like many other service providers in the child protection industry, many foster parents tend to be self-serving, self-righteous and self-extolling. The appreciation banner on the left (taken in a sky train station in Burnaby, British Columbia) grossly exaggerated the value of foster parents to society.

This is not to say that there is no good foster home and all foster parents are abusers and provide their services for financial reason. However, the presence of good foster parents is not sufficient to rectify corruption in the "child protection" industry. Ironically, the industry, armed by the power to remove children at will and motivated by tax dollars, is the largest institutional risk to the safety and best interests of children.

In view of previous efforts and past experience, this corrupt temple is unsalvageable. No meaningful reform is possible when the entire child protection industry is controlled by self-serving financially motivated service providers. The only solution to prevent racketeering and to build a safer future for our children is to revoke general child removal authority per Child Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA) (in B.C.).