To those who have no first hand experience with service providers in the "child protection" industry or are new to being scrutinized by them, there are many beliefs based on common sense, intuition, expectations of a responsible government, our social and moral values. Many of these beliefs, hereinafter known as myths (or illusions) on this page, are inaccurate, unreal or wrong.
The purposes of this page are:
to shed a different insight from those who had received "service" before;
to help oppressed parents to make informed decisions;
to correct these wrong beliefs; and
to advance understanding of how service providers function in the "child protection" industry.
Experience and evidence supporting our views are derived from the legal and socio-political environment surrounding "child protection" activities in British Columbia, Canada. Readers outside British Columbia are cautioned that reality discussed herein may be different or inapplicable in their local areas. Furthermore, change in law could affect the validity of some of our views.
Please click the myths below to read our view of reality and rate selected items. Your opinion is important to us. Please do NOT rate more than once on each item.
Note that not all myths, but only those in purple, below have a rating option.
The legislative intent of CFCSA is to protect children, essentially against abuse from their own parents or custodial guardians. Parental rights are not protected by this act.
"Parents have rights in order that they may fulfil their obligations towards their children. When they are relieved of all of their obligations, they lose the corresponding rights, including the right of access. After a permanent guardianship order is made, access is a right that belongs to the child, and not to the parents. The Court of Appeal did not recognize that the parents had a right of access; it simply allowed them to have access to the children. It used the expression “right” in the sense of permission."
Wrong. Nowhere in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms suggests or implies such right. Our forefathers had either wrongly assumed that such fundamental right will not be violated in any civilized society or deliberately allowed custody of children be used as an oppressive weapon.
No. These legal rights pertain to criminal and penal matters. CFCSA is neither criminal nor penal (although the latter is practically untrue) in nature. Therefore, these rights do not apply. It is safe to contend that CFCSA is designed to circumvent protection in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
No. As illustrated by the case law above, the judiciary often errs on the side of caution in child protection proceedings, namely, CPSW are given the benefit of a doubt, not parents.
That said, while parents may avoid criminal conviction when using corporal punishment, they may risk losing their children to the government under CFCSA. Be mindful that CPSW often attempt to convince the police to lay an assault charge to lend support of their custody application. If there is little or no evidence to pursue a further prosecution, the Crown will stay the charge before trial. Nonetheless, CPSW have already achieved their objective.
This is a very common popular belief. Why would MCFD remove children if their parents have not done anything wrong?
First of all, we are unsure whether perfect parents exist. Most people have problems in life. The issue is whether these problems is serious enough to form reasonable grounds for MCFD to remove children and how public resources should be used to deal with these problems.
Some parents with children removed may have problems such as:
innocent acts (such as taking photos of nude children);
malicious child abuse complaints (notably from estranged spouse and people who dislike parents).
Given the confrontational situation and adversarial approach, parents often find themselves on a collision course with CPSW and could offend them during "child protection" investigation when parents:
Often, CPSW retaliate, of course under the pretext of "child protection", by removing their children. Please click the blue links above to view cases supporting the foregoing.
Child protection" is a self-serving industry in which special interests aggrandize money, power and fame. There are compelling reasons to believe that many state-sponsored child removals are unjustified, are motivated by financial and job security reasons and have created more social problems than they solve.
This is one of the most commonly misconceived causes of the problem. Service providers in the "child protection" industry welcome this belief. When more public resources are given, service providers will create more cases to justify their existence and to aggrandize more. Be mindful that law allows them to define what child abuse is, hence they control the demand of their services. Too much resources have been put into the wrong hands, rendering "child protection" activities ineffective and often counter productive.
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 worldwide.
This is what the government wants its people to believe. Politicians often say to the media that MCFD does not make child removal decisions lightly, implying that there must be serious problems with the parents when MCFD decides to remove their children.
Law gives MCFD power to remove children when no other less disruptive measure available to protect the child adequately. Removal as the last resort is always a policy that MCFD would like the public to believe. Child removal authority is the trump card of CPSW and is always used as their big stick behind their sweet talk. This is not to say that they always remove at the first instance of their involvement. To fabricate an illusion of reasonableness and propriety of their activities, CPSW often work towards removal by lengthening their involvement, constantly shifting their concerns and creating conditions to justify removal. The hidden agenda is to maximum business opportunities and job security of service providers.
state-sponsored child removal results in higher crime rate [41.2% of children (12-17) in care appear in youth court (Table 1 of the Source below) versus 6.4% of general population] rendering our society less safe;
government has to levy higher taxes to pay service providers in the "child protection" industry and lawsuits resulting from wrongful deaths and various types of abuse in foster homes;
state-sponsored child removal seriously challenges natural justice, fundamental human right and is a potential source of social unrest.
Statutes, case law and legal process are all lopsided against parents. Delay in scheduling "child protection" hearings is common, partly due to various delaying tactics used by MCFD. Evidence accepted in these hearings may include hearsays, opinions, beliefs, unsubstantiated allegations and conclusions derived from provoked responses.
Physical separation between abusive parents and vulnerable children is necessary in some rare and extreme child abuse cases. Most people will find these extreme cases appalling and support state intervention. Special interests in the "child protection" industry use these cases to justify intervention and get people to accept it as the norm. To aggrandize more power and funding, they keep making more and more unnecessary removals.
Child protection does not equal child removal. There are other statutes (such as the Criminal Code and the Mental Health Act) that give authorities power to separate them based on due process of law and good evidence. The general child removal power accorded by CFCSA is oppressive, redundant and counter productive.
This is one of the most unbelievable activities CPSW do in carrying out their "child protection" mandate. Most people find allegations of being watched or followed by MCFD plain cloth agents paranoid. Such allegations are often treated as mudslinging. Even some oppressed parents dismiss MCFD mounted surveillance as hyperbole because they have not experienced it.
Surveillance is a common practice in police, intelligence and espionage operations. It is a well known fact that insurance companies (including ICBC and the Workers' Compensation Board of B.C.) often mount surveillance on insurance claimants. Contrary to popular belief, watching and following is not always illegal. Be mindful that CPSW are indeed a special type of police. Their job title has no bearing in what they actually do. While evidence obtained from surveillance may not be admissible in criminal trials, it is most likely admissible in "child protection" hearings.
CPSW do not launch surveillance in every case. They only do this if there is incriminating evidence to gain. For instance, surveillance is often mounted when there is a supervision order prohibiting unauthorized contact of one parent with children who must leave his/her family home in exchange for return of children under the custody of the other parent. Undercover agents are often sent to stalk parents and stake out residence in the aforesaid scenario hoping to catch a breach.
More details on this issue can be found at our MCFD Surveillance page.
No. Police officers have no discretion at all. CFCSA contains provisions that obliged the police to act as told. If they don't, they risk losing their job.
Unlike in criminal trials, once CPSW form an opinion that parents are unfit to raise their children, parents often bear the reverse onus to prove that CPSW are wrong. Given the low threshold of proof and the admissibility of hearsay and opinions, refuting MCFD's allegations in court is difficult. Court sometimes prefers to err on the side of caution, which amounts to presumption of guilt on parents.
Very seldom. Most visitations are arranged during regular business hours which are the usual work hours of parents. Many parents end up losing their jobs due to their frequent absence from work to attend visitations.
This myth is very common among those who blindly trust an elected government, especially recent immigrants who came to pursue a safer future in Canada. In the short Canadian history, our elected government had made some very racist law (such as the Chinese Immigration Act, 1923, also known as the Chinese Exclusion Act 1923) and oppressive policies (like the head tax and the Canadian Indian residential schools). Like modern "child protection", some of these law and policies were made under the pretext of safety and protection. An elected government could trample a man's right as easily and as much as a tyranny. Furthermore, this problem also retains in other "free and democratic" English-speaking nations like England, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand.
Reference:
Stephen Harper's apology to Chinese Head Tax Victims on June 22, 2006 (The Head Tax was imposed on Chinese immigrants entering Canada from 1885 to 1923, which failed to reduce the expected number of Chinese immigrants. The Canadian government then introduced the Chinese Immigration Act in 1923 to prohibit Chinese from immigrating. This law remained in effect until 1947).
Theoretically, there are internal and external complaint resolution mechanisms (such as the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth). But none of these external entities has the legally binding power to carry out their recommendation(s). Inadvertently or not, resolution process often serves to wear and tear complainants. There is no meaningful check and balance. Given CPSW's power to re-remove children with or without new evidence, it is safe to contend that even the provincial court has limited power to rectify wrongdoings of CPSW, let alone punishing them.
MCFD had tried but failed to obtain immunity from liability [per C.H. v. British Columbia, 2004 BCCA 385 (CanLII)]. Hence, parents are free to commence legal proceedings against MCFD if there are actionable grounds.
That said, we are unaware of any case law in which CPSW are personally found liable for negligence or malice. Lawsuits against them will be indemnified (both legal costs and damages) by their employer MCFD, or more precisely taxpayers in British Columbia.
No, parents are often given this information shortly before hearings, hence giving them no time to prepare for proper response. This often obliges them to seek adjournment and allows MCFD to lengthen involvement.
On the contrary, many parents are put under duress and their children are used as pawns to blackmail them to admit to guilt in exchange for "consideration" of returning their children. Such blackmail amounts to extortion and obstruction of justice. Furthermore, another common coercion is to force parents to divorce and to force one spouse to testify in court against the other.
Firstly, there are not many parental rights to begin with. Secondly, even if there is no just cause of removal, it will take at least several months to a year before a Section 35 hearing in which parents have the first opportunity to present their evidence can be scheduled. To most parents, such as long wait is unacceptable. Statistically, the chance of winning in Section 35 hearings is less than 2% for parents. By and large, this belief is not true.
No, MCFD does not always follow the guiding principles defined in Section 2 of CFCSA. Most notably, the principle of child's view be taken into account in making decisions [2(d)], preserving kinship ties and attachment [2(e)] and making timely decisions [2(g)] are often violated.
It depends. If such assessment will likely support MCFD's position, they will do it promptly. If the first assessment does not turn out to be their liking, they will pay another doctors or shrinks to assess again and cherry pick the opinions that meet their needs. On the other hand, if such assessment will likely refute their allegation of abuse and support returning children to their parents, they probably will drag on their feet.
Only families who have received "services" from MCFD qualify to comment on this notion, not service providers, judges or politicians. So far, we have not met one family that is in the opinion that MCFD interventions are enriching. Documented facts and testimonies in our site speak for themselves. What a removed child said about CPSW on November 21, 2006 during a supervised visit in Port Alberni contains some typical comments from the service recipient point of view (click here to view Part 2 of the video).
That said, given the public resources at their disposal, it will not be difficult for them to buy clients who will speak highly of them.
Generally, no. Parents will be excommunicated after MCFD obtains continuing custody order (also known as permanent custody order in some jurisdictions). Often, restraining order will be sought if parents make unauthorized contacts with their children and will be charged with kidnapping if they try repossessing them. The wishes and preferences of parents are the last thing CPSW worry about. Above all, there is no law obliging MCFD to do so.
MCFD subcontracts many of these functions to external service providers. Foster parents in most cases will provide the basic needs. However, there are not enough empirical data to support whether interests and development of children in "care" are being looked after or not. What we can say with certainty is the fact that some of these children are killed, critically injured, sexually abused in foster homes while most of them are emotionally traumatized after removal.
Theoretically, yes and certainly this is what MCFD would like the public to believe. But in reality, CPSW are a special type of bureaucratic police with absolute power to investigate child abuse allegations, to enforce "child protection" law and to remove children from their parents at will.
Many parents, who naively believe that CPSW are paid to help and ask MCFD for help, learn the hard way that they are not. Cases archived in our "Cases" page and the speech of Professor Stephen Baskerville in the Family Preservation Festival 2008 Washington, DC support the foregoing.
Myths and apathy of the public largely contribute to the cancerous growth of the "child protection" industry perverted by special interests. They employ a simple but very successful strategy of using huge public resources to oppress a very small percentage of the population, mostly poor marginalized people.
Parents with children under age 19 are not aware how vulnerable they are until it is too late. Lack of accountability and transparency, excessive government fundings, lopsided law, insufficient check and balance create conditions to flourish an unprecedented corruption so advanced that there is no head to cut off. There may be some good service providers genuinely working to protect children. However, their presence is insufficient to curb corruption as they have little control over the system. If one betrays the principle of the accrual of money and power, the others betray and destroy him. Whistle-blowing CPSW who refused to go with the flow got fired. Politicians (like Nancy Schaefer) who acted on conscience and advocated changing laws to root out this corruption were sacked by their party boss. Even judges (notably Andree Ruffo) making decisions in favor of children and openly spoke about the flaws in "child protection" were dismissed. What you see is the darkest side of human weakness and perhaps the biggest scandal in the Western free and democratic world.
The current "child protection" apparatus is so corrupt that it is irreparable without revoking the general power to remove children from their parents. Such oppressive and absolute power has no place in a free and democratic society. It is counter productive in genuine child protection work and is an abnormal product of uncontrolled bureaucratic government growth. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is meaningless as long as government has the power to remove children from the homes of its citizens. As the infamous history of Canadian Indian residential school system has demonstrated, this power can be used to target any person or group of people based on their:
Furthermore, there are compelling reasons to believe that modern "child protection" is a derivative of the infamous Canadian Indian residential school regime. Please browse our Native Indians & MCFD page for more details.
In selling his unpopular HST in August 2009, Premier Gordon Campbell alleged that this tax is needed to provide social services that are fundamental to a "high quality of life". Those who have no child or whose children are over 19 years of age are also affected by the high taxes levied to pay special interests in the "child protection" industry and to deal with other social problems created by state-sponsored child removal. The joint major study released by the Representative for Children and Youth and the Provincial Health Officer on February 23, 2009 supports the following problems:
higher crime rate [41.2% of children (12-17) in care appear in youth court (Table 1 of the joint study ) versus 6.4% of general population, be mindful that children under the age of 12 cannot be charged of criminal offence in Canada];
perpetual poverty [88.6% of children in care receive income assistance by the age of 19 versus 29.5% of general population (Table 7 of the joint study)];
homelessness (frequent consequence of the aforesaid problems).
Safety and protection are appealing terms in politics and in the court of law. People see themselves as beneficiaries and seldom resist government policies and measures allegedly implemented for these purposes. Safety and protection become ideal pretexts to launch activities that may carry different agenda and generate opposite results. Government prescribed family therapy, state-sponsored child removal and the controversial long-gun firearm registry are the best examples to demonstrate the foregoing.
We are not trying to undermine the importance of safety and protection of vulnerable groups. All government policies and measures that help enhance safety and protection must genuinely serve the alleged objectives in a cost efficient manner and meet the approval of the intended beneficiaries without violating their legal and natural rights. Professor Stephen Baskerville said in the Family Preservation Festival 2008 (Washington, DC), "If you touch my children, you answer to me." Parents, are you ready to rise, abate this oppressive power and protect your children from the largest institutional risk of child safety?
[This page was added on 12 September 2010, last revised 23 March 2015.]
