Lessons Learnt From This Case

1. Unsuspecting parents do not know how vulnerable they are when they are ruthlessly scrutinized by CPS.


2. Unsparing CPS workers often lobby criminal charges laid on parents as this will certainly lend support to their child custody applications.


3. Denial of wrongdoing or failure to admit responsibility is often considered uncooperative and refusal to take positive step to address child protection concerns. In many cases, CPS workers will remove children if parents plead not guilty to the criminal charges lobbied by CPS workers. In another words, children are used as pawns to force their parents to admit guilt in court. The Bayne's case in British Columbia (2007-2011) is a good example to illustrate the foregoing.


4. Addiction is a common reason of child removal. In principle, addiction of suntanning is similar with substance abuse. They both incur an addiction of a habit potentially harmful to children. This case may create a new reason to remove children from parents. It is noteworthy to remark that a potential of risk to children, not an act of child abuse, is sufficient to justify action in the child protection industry.


5. If the spouse refuses to support the position of CPS or to testify against his/her spouse in court, he or she will be considered a risk as well. Some parents are forced to separate or to divorce to prevent their children forcibly placed in foster homes.


6. Public attitude, as evident in the second video above, is often against parents when there is an allegation of child abuse. Public support often swings in favor of CPS. Most people do not have first hand experience with CPS and are of the opinion that CPS will assist families in need and will not remove children if there is no serious problems. This attitude is exactly what CPS needs to maintain their lucrative business. Service providers in the child protection industry will do everything they can to prevent parents from uncovering the hideous nature of their business.



7. As repeatedly proven in many other cases, parents are wrong to think that they will not get into trouble with "child protection" agency if they have not abused or neglected their children. Accidents, misunderstanding, malicious complaints, domestic disputes without involving children, different attitude in child upbringing and discipline, or even happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time (for instance the Jamie Sullivan, an Edmonton mother case) may end up having one's children removed.

   "Child protection" workers have the practical power (under the threat of child removal) to walk into one's home without a warrant to conduct whatever investigation as they see fit. Armed with the absolute statutory authority to remove children at will with the assistance of the police, they are the most powerful bureaucrats in the entire government. State-sponsored child removal seriously jeopardizes our safety, freedom and human rights. Allowing government to have such oppressive power is as foolish as giving a loaded gun to someone and providing financial incentive to be shot at.