Howard Smith (Foster Father) of Scarborough Pleaded Guilty of Raping Underage Foster Child

We once said that some removed children become sex toys of their foster parents. Here is the proof. This crime was committed between 26 April 1978 and 13 July 1978, 35 years ago from the date of trial in January 2013. In April 2010, Howard Smith of Scarborough, a retired Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) general superintendent once in charge of over 5,000 employees, was charged after DNA test confirmed that he was the father of the girl born by his foster daughter who is now 50. In January 2013, Smith pleaded guilty to sexual assault charges of his foster daughter who was 14-year old at the time of the crime.

The victim was in and out of the "care" of the highly controversial Catholic Children's Aid Society (CCAS, or more commonly known as CAS, MCFD's counterpart in Ontario) for undisclosed reasons. Like most removed children, the victim was bounced around more than 22 different foster homes in two years before ending in the Smith home. In less than a year with the Smith, the victim was repeatedly raped by Howard Smith and was pregnant with his child at age 15. Her virginity was taken by a man whom she despised.

To cover up wrongdoings of their peers in the child protection industry, her social worker ignored her complaints and accused her of lying. In the news article "Teen impregnated by foster dad failed by Children's Aid Society" published on 29 January 2013, news reporter 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 very common that complaints of abuse from removed children in foster homes are often ignored until problems get out of hand.

After she became pregnant, her social worker yanked her out of Smith's home. She was placed in a home for unwed mothers. CCAS never report to the police. The victim, 15-year old at that time, was warned by her social worker that if she dares to name Smith as the father on the birth certificate, her new born infant will be removed and be given to Smith. Under such threat and duress, she named the paternity unknown. When she decided to raise her baby herself, CAS workers harassed her ruthlessly and attempted to remove her child.

To discourage the victim from talking to the police, CCAS supervisor laughed at her in 1998 and said that a statute of limitations would bar charges being laid against Smith. Of course, the CCAS supervisor is wrong. There is no time limit in laying criminal charges of this nature as long as the perpetrators are still alive. She finally spoke to the London (Ontario) police in 2010. The Toronto police subsequently took over the investigation. DNA test confirmed the victim's allegation that Smith is the biological father of her child.

Howard Smith was arrested and charged with indisputable evidence. To mitigate punishment, Smith shrewdly pleaded guilty, apologized, expressed remorse, filed numerous character reference letters (including one from his wife) to the court suggesting that he is a good church-going family man with unblemished record. After reaching a plea agreement with the Crown, rape indictment against Smith was withdrawn in exchange for a guilty plea to lesser charges of having sexual intercourse with his underage foster child. Alleging health problems and supported by the aforesaid mitigating factors, Smith was sentenced to a conditional 2-year house arrest followed by three years of probation and 360 hours of community service on 29 March 2013.

According to the impact statement filed to court, the victim claimed that she washed herself with bleach to cleanse the lingering memories of this CAS-created atrocity. The incident triggered her lifelong battle of depression. She suffers from eating disorder and post traumatic stress in the last decade. Her comment on the March 2013 judgment is:

Outside the courtroom, the victim told reporters that she plans to sue Smith and the CCAS.

When unwanted public attention is attracted in cases involving state-sponsored child removal, little information is available to the public. We are unable to find any news video footage or Ontario Superior Court judgment surrounding this CAS-created tragedy. CAS spokesperson Gehna Singh could not comment on whether the social worker in charge of the file is still employed or has been disciplined because it will take a day to locate the file. Later, Mary McConville, executive director of the CCAS of Toronto wrote in an e-mail:

Like most spokesperson and politicians defending the child protection industry, her reply is devious, ambiguous and fails to answer whether the social worker in question is still employed or has been disciplined. Such response is akin to often heard inane statement like child removal decision is not made lightly, we intend to return the children when it is safe to do so.

The details available to the public surrounding this case are archived below.

The following are noteworthy in this case:

1. Removed children are often bounced around in different foster homes to ensure that enough foster parents financially benefit to stay in the system and hence remain a die-hard supporter of the industry.


2. Child protection workers at times are boastful of their legal knowledge which turns out to be incorrect. In this case, the CCAS supervisor gave wrong legal information that misled the victim not to prosecute her raper.

   In child protection proceedings, statements from child protection workers are often taken as gospel truth and their recommendations are often rubber stamped by the judiciary. Hearsay evidence is explicitly allowed. Judges allow child protection proceedings, which are civil in nature, to be as informal as possible to suit the best interests of the child protection agency (Section 66 of Child, Family and Community Service Act, CFCSA). The level of proof is extremely low. Erring on the side of caution to make orders in favor of the agency is a term often used in child protection decisions. Spirit of law is flouted to allow orders be made in favor of the agency. For example, parents often bear the reverse onus of proof and agency can commence proceedings when there is no third party complaint or needs not to show the child is in immediate danger (see "Director v. M.P., 2005 BCPC 651"). This modus operandi supports arbitrary child removal and reduces the judiciary to a rubber stamping kangaroo court. This may give child protection workers confidence that their beliefs correctly interpret laws.

   Despite both proceedings are run by the same groups of judges at the same court level, criminal trials are completely different from child protection hearings. It is a due process where the Crown bears the onus of proof (as the accused is assumed to be innocent by the Canadian Charter of Rights until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which only applies in criminal trials). Admissible evidence is under strict control of the Evidence Act. Using the lax standard in child protection proceedings to give legal advice on criminal matters suggest ignorance, lack of accountability and arrogance.



3. CAS workers who abused their power to conceal serious crimes, such as rape in this case, are completely out of the picture. Their names are not disclosed and of course they receive no punishment whatsoever. Why these bureaucrats with such absolute and oppressive power are immune from punishment? How can accountability be established when wrongdoings carry no consequence? No wonder why some of these creatures can play god and boast that they have more power than judges in front of oppressed parents.



4. Corruption in the child protection industry: retaliation on those who disagree, unveil wrongdoings and those who get their children back in court

   An appalling act of child protection workers often heard is threat and retaliation if the victim and their supporters dare to embarrass service providers or to uncover their wrongdoings. In this case, the victim was warned by her social worker that if she names Smith as the father on the baby’s birth certificate, they would ensure her daughter be given to him. Furthermore, when she raised her child on her own, unsparing CAS workers harassed her ruthlessly and attempted to remove her child. Note that young single mothers, especially Aboriginal mothers, with weak financial background are their prime targets.

   Child removal power is often abused to suppress whistle-blowers and to beat parents and children into submission, such as admitting child abuse accusation, addiction of substance abuse, having mental disorder, ... etc. This case sheds light to confirm the authenticity of the abuse of power that we discuss in "MCFD's Absolute Power".



5. In the dark era of residential schools, children pregnant by their care givers were common. Nothing is new under the sun. Modern child protection is of no difference. Some foster children become the sex slaves of their foster parents or other foster children living in the same home.

   Despite Stephen Harper's apology and the government decision to shut down all residential schools in 1996, the dark era never ends. It just re-emerges in a more dangerous and hypocritical form called child protection in which all ethnic groups may fall prey. How can the government renounce residential schools and yet support "child protection"? Their similarities in nature are discussed in our "MCFD & The First Nation" and will not be repeated here. Modern child protection is an extension or a disguised derivative of the oppressive "cultural assimilation" policy expanded to all ethnic groups as the interpretation of "child safety and best interests of children" is dictated by service providers whose value and interests are not the same with all parents.



6. Service providers in the child protection industry have been very successful in lobbying law to prohibit dissemination of information under the pretext of protecting child privacy. All child protection agencies are very aggressive in launching lawsuits to prevent information may harm their business. "Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. N.B.R., 2013 ONSC 1965" is a recent case launched by the same CAS to compel a father to remove identifiable information from the internet. Who are they trying to protect? The children or service providers? Who initiated oppressive and inhumane actions that derogate a family for life?

   The aforesaid case confirms that child protection agencies have employees browsing the internet to fish for information that could harm the industry. Whenever they find anything they dislike, they will pursue to have it remove. MCFD does precisely this in "Removal of 1-Year old S. from Mel in Victoria, British Columbia (December 2007)". To serve their best interests, they do not want people to talk about them (of course except commendable remarks), to know the real nature of their business or to hear anything from people they oppress.

   Mr. Robert Quaid said in the "Ruses Used By Politicians" video below that the child protection industry will disclose the full identify of foster children if it is in its best interests to so. He is suggesting a self-serving, hypocritical and situational double standard. The BC Government propaganda video "Celebrating B.C.'s Amazing Foster Parents" below promoting foster parenting clearly identified Ms. Raven Wright as a former youth in care. Beyond any doubt, this confirms Mr. Quaid's view.

Remarks

The victim is one of the many children who have suffered unspeakable horror in foster homes. Traumatized by separation from their parents, young children have to deal with bossy, if not bullying, child protection workers who play the role of business broker in the industry. Under the pretext of child protection, they hire various service providers, whose livelihood depends on state-sponsored child removal, with inexhaustible tax dollars at their disposal.

Most people run foster homes to make easy tax-free money. In the harsh environment of foster homes, most foster children live without the irreplaceable loving care of their parents. Unlucky ones are abused or killed by their foster parents. Most foster children become a burden to society after they graduate from foster care. The foregoing is supported by empirical date in "Impacts on Children, Families and Society." It is safe to contend that state-sponsored child removal creates more problems that it solves and is, ironically, the largest institutional risk to child safety.

Without forensic science, the victim will never bring her raper to justice. She stands no chance against a respectable and financially well off foster father who has demonstrated remarkable astuteness in his shrewd legal manoeuver in minimizing punishment. Child protection workers and their psychologists will mudsling her as delusional, tarnish her as an undisciplined child with a psychotic disorder and, perhaps, put all responsibilities on her biological parents.

This case demonstrates how vulnerable parents and children are once scrutinized by a child protection agency and how difficult it is to protect your family against such absolute oppressive power motivated by huge tax dollars. Seeking remedies is even more difficult, risky and time consuming. Retaliation and costs are prohibitive to victims who suffered inhumane treatments in the child protection industry. After a 35-year struggle, the perpetrator received a trivial sentence that could only be characterized as a kiss on the cheek. The victim continues to suffer from a nightmare in her childhood that child protection law is supposed to prevent. CAS workers get away unpunished, perhaps still receiving their paychecks and enjoying their fat pension. Above all, they or their successors are still pursuing helpless families and continue to place children in the highly questionable foster care.

State-sponsored child removal seriously jeopardizes our safety and freedom. It has been used by service providers for racketeering under the pretext of child protection. Such corruption is dangerous, inhumane, barbaric and often counter-productive in protecting children. It is a disgrace to humanity and has no place in any civilized society.

References

• Retired Toronto transit superintendent pleads guilty to sexual assault of teen (Sun News 29 January 2013)
• Former TTC superintendent sentenced in sexual abuse case (The Toronto Observer 5 April 2013)