Stop Legal Child Abduction

Once in the position of exercising child removal authority, "child protection" workers soon realize that they are the most powerful bureaucrats in government. Their job title is misleading as they are indeed a secret police enforcing "child protection" law. By and large, this law allegedly protects children under age 19 from abuse of their own parents or custodians. "Child protection" workers do not wear uniform or carry guns. They have the statutory power to remove children at will. Police is obliged by law to assist as required.

With little or no law enforcement training, they have more power than provincial court judges. Few people can hold them accountable. Access to the deep pocket of taxpayers permits brokering free spending on other service providers in the "child protection" industry. The more child protection files they create, the higher their job security and a larger budget in the following year. Mistakes they made are either covered up or downplayed by the government, often done under the pretext of privacy. Watch how Alberta's Minister of Children and Youth Services Yvonne Fritz used this typical tactic to evade CTV questioning after the 4-month old infant of an Edmonton mother died in foster care on 31 May 2011. Their employer, namely taxpayers, indemnifies lawsuits resulting from their abuse of authority or negligence. They are not held responsible personally no matter how serious their torts are. Taxpayers are always an indirect victim.

Child protection and its sister industry of adoption are both very lucrative to special interests. Our views on the foregoing are discussed in our Adoption and Child Removal page. Federal and provincial governments provide various financial incentives to remove children from their parents, put them in government care and subsequently adopt them. This process generates numerous business opportunities for special interests. The 2011 federal budget announced on 6 June 2011 stipulates that from 2012 and subsequent years, payment of Children's Special Allowances (CSA) to an agency in respect of a child who is a former Crown ward and who has been placed in the custody of a legal guardian, tutor (in Quebec) or a similar caregiver and the agency provides financial assistance for the maintenance of the child. This extended payment further enhances financial incentive for removing children. The CSA application form RC64 will give more insight on who the beneficiaries are.

The following are some explanations we found from various cases we came across:

1. To obtain continuing custody, they need to establish that parents are unlikely to address their "child protection" concerns. Supervised visits without the presence of a third party from parents are golden opportunities to fabricate incriminating evidence. Mrs. Barbara Newton told us in June 2011 that she witnessed Magda stopping her son Paul from eating dog food during a supervised visit. Magda got some human food to show her young child what he should be eating. This was misconstrued as feeding dog food to Paul in the supervised visit report, hence suggesting insanity and child abuse.
   
   
2. Access is often used as pawn to coerce parents to consent to their demands and a weapon to punish them if they stand defiant. The less access they give, the more likely they will get a custody order due to a lack of bonding between the child and their parents. The Supreme Court of Canada decision "Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M. (C.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165" stipulates to this effect. In this case, lower courts ruled in favor of parents and ordered removed child be returned. Children's Aid Society (CAS, MCFD's counterpart in Ontario) refused to return and appealed. By continuing to keep children in foster care, they fabricate the condition (lack of bonding) required by the judiciary to grant a permanent custody order and hence secure an adoption.
   
   
3. No venture no gain. There is no downside risk of blatantly abusing their position of trust and power. If they manage to get the court to rubber stamp their decisions (in many cases they have been successful), they create legal precedents to further expand their power and bureaucratic empire, under the pretext of "child protection" of course. In "Director v. M.P., 2005 BCPC 651", temporary custody order made in favor of the Director when:
   1. there is no third party complaint;
   2. the director needs not to show that the child is in immediate danger; or
   3. the removal is in the best interests of the child.

   If the "child protection" worker did not remove under the aforesaid absurd conditions, there will be no such precedent supporting arbitrary removal.

4. Abuse of parents will give the added benefit of provoking them to act out of character, hence confirming the theory of unfit parents, which often includes anger control and violence problems. If "child protection" workers push the right button and provoke parents to utter a death threat, criminal charge will be laid. An outstanding criminal charge will lend support to custody application in CFCSA proceedings. The Crown may eventually stay the proceeding or parents may get an acquittal in the criminal trial. But MCFD has already obtained what they want, compelling parents to fight a two-front legal battle, exacting more financial punishment and keep their children for a very long time. They know how to manipulate the system. Many are calculating, ruthless and unsparing. Don't take the bait.

More court cases on CFCSA matters can be found in our Law Library page.