Thursday, October 21, 2010

004 - Myths and Reality (#1)

Parents are given sufficient rights when scrutinized by "child protection" social workers. Do you agree?

he general public has some assumptions of how government operates. One of the assumptions people have is that is if any taxpayer funded entity intervenes in the lives of citizens, there are clear boundaries and rights that government officials are obligated to obey, and to inform us of what rights we have.

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 the Myths page on the website  are:
  1. to shed a different insight from those who had received "service" before;
  2. to help oppressed parents to make informed decisions;
  3. to correct these wrong beliefs; and
  4. 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.
The myths are:

  1. Parents are given sufficient rights when scrutinized by CPSW.
  2. Custody of one's own children is enshrined by constitution in Canada.
  3. Legal rights enshrined in Section 7 to Section 14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply in child protection hearings.
  4. MCFD bears the onus of proof in all legal proceedings.
  5. Parents will be given the benefit of a doubt in child protection legal proceedings.
  6. Physical discipline (or corporal punishment) of children is illegal in Canada.
  7. There must be serious and legitimate child protection concerns when MCFD removes children from their parents.
  8. Problems and deficiencies in "child protection" are due to insufficient resources.
  9. Children are necessarily safer in foster homes, known safe places.
  10. Removal of children is the last resort.
  11. I have no kid or my children are all over 19 years of age. I have no concern of what MCFD does.
  12. Court provides fair and prompt adjudication based on good evidence.
  13. Power to remove children is imperative in protecting them.
  14. Children have rights protected by CFCSA, such as the right to attend the planning meeting for their care and to bring adult advocates of their choosing to speak on their behalf. Their wishes are respected and considered.
  15. MCFD is a respectable government ministry charged with the noble mandate of protecting children. CPSW will not conduct illegal surveillance on their clients.
  16. Police officers have their discretion when asked to assist CPSW in removing children.
  17. Parents are presumed innocent until proven guilty in child protection hearings.
  18. CPSW are governed by a professional body and are abide by the code of ethics and standard of practice of the regulatory body.
  19. Visitations of removed children are arranged at the convenience of parents outside their working hours.
  20. Oppression and abuse of authority, especially to the magnitude described herein, are impossible in a free and democratic nation.
  21. There are sufficient check and balance (such as the complaint resolution process) to curb abuse of power.
  22. CPSW dare not to abuse their statutory power as they can be held liable personally.
  23. Parents will be given plenty of time to review allegations, reports and assessment against them.
  24. Parents are treated with respect and will not be coerced to admit guilt or allegations.
  25. The Office of the Representative for Children and Youth (RCY) employs child advocates who have the authority to intervene if MCFD staff are believed to be acting inappropriately or contrary to the rights and interests of the child.
  26. Character references help after removal of your children.
  27. Lawyers representing parents can protect parental rights and ensure prompt return of children if there is no just cause.
  28. MCFD always follows guiding principles set forth in CFCSA.
  29. Children will be assessed medically and psychologically on a timely basis.
  30. MCFD enriches and develops families.
  31. CPSW will respect the wishes and preferences of parents on the upbringing of children.
  32. MCFD looks after the needs, interests, and development of children that have been taken into care.
  33. CPSW are paid to help families.


  1. The short answer to the question is no, social workers do not "give" parents any rights, or for that matter, any credit whatsoever that would help them.

    Child protection workers have specific training in university on social engineering, and as such, have a unique understanding of the effects on their intervention with children and their parents.

    Rather than avoid or minimize such harm, social workers instead seek to use their skills to maximize the damage that is done in order to ensure themselves future work.

    Child protection social workers operate with the knowledge parents do not fully understand their rights. The social worker does know parents rights, but will not communicate this in order to create an advantage over them.

    This is precisely why "social workers" are hired, because they have training and unique understanding of social engineering to use as weapons against those the families pretend to serve.

    Social workers serve their employer, the child protection industry, they do NOT serve children or parents at all.

    Social workers view parents as the enemy, and they view their children as pawns against their parents.

    In war, more damage can be done against the enemy, not by killing them outright, but by severely wounding them, forcing expenditure of resources required to care for the injuried. When a child is removed from a family, this forces parents to use all their resources to repair the situation.

    Use the example of audio recording for instance. In B.C., the criminal code permits recording your own conversation, regardless of who else is present, and without prior notification. It is not legal to record conversations of other people when you are not party to the conversation. Social workers will often instruct foster parents to listen in on conversations children have with their parents.

    If a parent openly records a meeting with social workers, these workers become upset, and will leave. They know parents have the right to record. Social workers will record their interrogation with children if it can be used against their parents and they know in advance what the answers will be.

    Social workers are accustomed to having an advantage over parents, and do NOT want the parents to be in posession of irrefutable evidence of what is really said during a conversation, because this limits them as to the lies they write into investigative intake reports that they can later be held accountable for.

    Parents have a right to hear allegations others have communicated. However, social workers will often rephrase concerns, add their own, or omit such concerns that would serve to identify the person who called in the complaint.

    The very first thing parents should do is to ask the social worker to review their rights, and their children's rights. Since few parents are fully aware of their rights, this should be published here on the blog so there is no confusion.

    Answer this question: Do children have the right to have someone they know and trust to be present during unannounced interrogation requests at their school?

    Do children have the right to refuse to talk to social workers and be permitted to phone their parents?

    Adults under investigation have the right to have a lawyer or other advocate present, so, do children have this right also?

  2. Speaking of rights, I am unaware that parents have any at all in "child protection" investigations. Children and youth "in care" are supposed have some rights defined below which are seldom respected as well:

    Most notably, to be informed about their plans of care and to be consulted and to express their views, according to their abilities, about significant decision affecting them.

    While natural parent's rights are often not respected and not made known, foster parents have successfully gained many rights. See the web site of B.C. FEDERATION OF FOSTER PARENT ASSOCIATIONS below:

    The most laughable right is # 18, the right to be provided with access to support service when placements are terminated to minimize the foster parent's feelings of disruption and grief.

    There is no doubt that this so-called "child protection" is too costly, unrealistic and created too much harm to those involved.

  3. I am pleased to see another spokesperson or advocate for parents and for change.

    The Bayne Campaign for Justice

  4. Child protection social workers operate with the knowledge parents do not fully understand their rights. The social worker does know parents rights, but will not communicate this in order to create an advantage over them. I couldnt agree with you more I didnt know what it meant agreeing with the CCO Order and they dont tell you once you agree you cant revoke your agreement the MCFD will often manipulate you or trick you parents should be aware that is for sure! Lisa Arlin

  5. Child removal authority must be revoked before this problem can be solved.

    Parents should lock arms and work on this.

    Thank you PAPA for this blog to air my view.

  6. As a foster parent who recently had a 6 year old foster child we were adopting removed after what can only be described as a railroad investigation I can honestly say the most useless piece of paper in existance is the foster parents bill of rights. This will continue unless we start a legal defence fund for foster parents to bring these investigations up to legal standards.


Comments are manually approved to eliminate spam and off topic discussions.