Grandparents blog-Dedicated to Austin, Isabella and My Knight, Murdered by Illegal Palliative Care

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Structural Corruption in the "Child Protection" Industry"

Structural Corruption

We emphasize at the onset that not all members of the undermentioned special interest groups are corrupt. We respect that some of them are honestly doing their job and may have helped some children and families in need. However, the presence of these non-corrupted members is insufficient to rectify the corruption. We do not intend to cast insult, promote hatred or create bias against any group, government or individual. We reiterate our objective of making ameliorative changes that better protect children, the rights of their parents and the best interests of families. We hope to provide an overview for education purpose based on facts, published data, empirical evidence, credible testimonies and logical analysis.

Structural corruption in the "child protection" industry is analyzed at the macro and micro level.

At the Macro Level

For corruption to become structural at the macro level, the following prerequisites are required.

Prerequisite Empirical Evidence
presence of financial incentives
[Please click the headings to view the contents.]

Financial incentive is the most common motivating factor in corruption. The following sources provide enticing financial incentives:
Provincial government operating budgets

In many "child protection" cases, taxpayers pay hundred of thousands for each child removed. A good percentage of these children are removed unnecessarily ... (click for more details)

Federal government subsidies
The Canadian federal government subsidizes removal of Native Indian children on a per head basis, hence creating financial incentive to provincial and territorial governments to target the First Nation.

Wealth of Parents with Children Removed
Compared with tax dollars in government budgets, this is a much smaller incentive. But the effects on families are devastating. Few oppressed parents have sufficient wealth that disqualifies them from receiving legal aid. Occasionally, children from more affluent parents are removed. In most cases, parents will commit all their resources to rescue their children from being kept in government "care". Lawyers representing parents thus have the opportunity to milk their clients dry. Opposing lawyers representing MCFD would work in concert to ensure more billable hours are created for their mutual benefits. Many parents end up losing their homes, their job and, above all, their children.

possession of vast financial resource, special and absolute statutory power
Empowered by the provincial Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA), Ministry-employed "child protection" social workers have the unique and near absolute statutory power to remove children from their families. They never require a court order to remove a child. This power has been abused by various parties (such as estranged spouses, police, Crown prosecutors, malicious parties including friends, relatives and neighbors) for purposes other than child protection.
CFCSA allows child protection hearings to circumvent due process in law that offers a fairer trial based on good evidence. This belief is supported by:
Section 66 of CFCSA stipulates that hearings under this Act is civil in nature and may be informal. This may put some parents at ease as they are not being tried for criminal matters that may result in a criminal record. This is an illusion that parents must be aware of. Because the hearing is civil in nature, all legal rights in Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply. The consequence of CFCSA hearings is far more serious to most parents than any penalty in the Criminal Code, namely losing the custody of your children to the government and get a child abuser record in a central state registry in some countries (such as the United States).
Section 67 and 68 of CFCSA specifically allow hearsay "evidence" in "child protection" hearings.
CFCSA is not only lopsided but also vague in providing unambiguous legal definitions in many ways. For instance, it does not define what constitute neglect, or the age limit above which parents are allowed to leave their children at home or to go to school without adult supervision. Silence in law allows room for "child protection" social workers to exercise their discretion and subjective judgment. Criminal code clearly defines the age of statutory rape. Our election act clearly stipulates the age above which a Canadian citizen can vote. Why CFCSA cannot be more specific to avoid abuse of power and double standard?
Parents have little or no representation in the legislation of "child protection" law and policy-making related to "child protection". The Canadian Bar Association published an article titled Child Protection Overload by Michelle Mann. The Legislative Reforms column on the right hand side stated that the "child protection" legislative reform expert panel in the Ontario government consisting of judges, social workers, doctors and other child protection professionals. Parents are excluded.
They have the authority and the motivation (for job security reason) to spend the tax dollars entrusted in their hands for "child protection" activities and hence are in a position to broker tax dollars to various service providers in the industry.
While Canadians are asked to tighten their belts in the midst of an economic recession, the 2009 B.C. Budget Update (announced on September 3, 2009) allocated new fundings to MCFD over a 3-year period to "care for and protection" of vulnerable children. This Budget Update specifically said that the HST (a controversial tax introduced) is needed to provide "social services" that are fundamental to a "high quality of life". This proves how powerful and influential special interests groups are on government.
lack of political will to change "child protection" law Despite what the legislative intent was, the root of this corruption lies on the absolute power to remove children from their families. Atrocities like the Sherry Charlie tragedy and Native Indian residential school are possible because government has this statutory power. An elected assembly can trample a man's right as much as a totalitarian tyranny.
To give a brief overview of how serious the lack of political will is, please click here to watch the news footage called "Children's Aid Society Oversight" made by CHCH News Live @ 5:30.

Although MLA are bombarded by reports from bureaucrats alleging how successful and necessary the "child protection" regime is, law makers are not totally ignorant on the corruption. Theoretically, they are supposed to serve the people. In reality, many elected officials are more concerned on getting more campaign money and votes to win the next election and to further their private interests. This pitfall in democracy applies to all levels of government in nations that practice democracy. Most politicians perceive support of revoking child removal authority politically suicidal as this will inevitably antagonize powerful special interest groups whose livelihood depends on this authority. They lack the farseeing insight to see that these hideous activities will eventually backfire on them in a scale beyond their control and imagination.

Part 1 of Nancy Schaefer's speech
in World Congress on Families V in Amsterdam
Please click here to view Part 2
Please click here to view this footage
in Eagle Forum of Georgia site.
Are there any exceptions? Yes, former U.S. Republican Georgia State Senator Nancy Schaefer spoke on corruption in "child protective services" (CPS) in Washington, D.C. on September 26th, 2008. Please click this link to view the speech transcript and the video. There are elected officials who speak the truth and act according to their conscience and principle, not on chance or party platform. We did not discover this video until October 11, 2009. Mrs. Schaefer precisely and concisely summarized our findings in the Canadian setting.

Against insurmountable odds and political unpopularity, she adamantly speaks against corruption in the "child protection" industry, advocates parental rights and tabled a bill to reform "Child Protective Service" (CPS). The strong points of her bill were compromised. Her political colleagues told her to live with this or to face sanction. This threat was made good and she lost her senatecy. Her speech at the World Congress on Families (August 11, 2009) is linked here. This corruption is epidemic in most English-speaking nations.

Mrs. Schaefer is no longer a senator. In her speech at the World Congress on Families on August 16, 2009, she confirmed that her report on CPS corruption cost her senatecy. She was told by her colleagues that if she helped families under CPS scrutiny, she will lose her job. The perception of political suicidal in supporting revoking child removal authority is unfortunately well founded. Are elected officials supposed to serve their constituents or be a yes man to their party boss? Is there any cause worthwhile losing a political position? Real political career focuses on protecting the best interests of the people, protecting justice and speaking the truth.

Given so much evidence of corruption and abuse of authority, why elected officials do not act? Are they elected by their constituents to protect their best interests, not that of the special interest groups in the "child protection" industry? Despite so many problems arising from state-sponsored child removal activities, why government still wants to retain this notorious child removal authority? To "protect" child? Or to oppress the people if necessary? Are politicians involved and benefit from this industry in any way, directly or indirectly? Why a senator who is honest enough to speak the truth and has the courage and political will to urge reform is sacked, not by the people through a democratic election but by the party boss? Who else are involved in this corruption if we dig deeper? Who else can people rely on to hold those in power accountable. We shudder at the thought. People in high social positions are obliged to act with integrity, honor, kindliness and generosity. Can we find these qualities in our politicians nowadays?

lack of public and media interest Given the demographic of low child birth rate, many British Columbians choose not to have children. To many of these childless people, this corruption is as remote as a problem in the moon.
Despite the massive abuse of authority, the media does not provide enough coverage to attract public attention. Few journalists would believe the full extent of the abuse many parents suffered. Above all, the abuse in many cases is so similar that most journalists find no new hook (fresh information of news value) in airing cases of this nature again.

In our humble opinion, the news value in the "child protection" issue is of significant public interests that warrants the production of a 2-hour special TV program. There is ample amount of empirical evidence and credible testimonies from both parents and professionals from different disciplines that suggest well hidden problems in this industry.

judicial failure to adhere to guiding principles in CFCSA and to provide fair and timely adjudication
[Please click the headings to view the contents.]

The judiciary contributes to the corruption in the following aspects and has brought the administration of justice surrounding "child protection" matters into disrepute:
Part 1 Lawyers, judges, professors, authors,
victims spoke on the industry ...
(view Part 2 in Fairness of Adjudication)
Failure to Adhere to Guiding Principles in CFCSA

The guiding principles in CFCSA govern state-sponsored "child protection" activities. (Click here for more detail.)

Timeliness of Adjudication

CFCSA requires that child protection hearings are conducted in a timely manner. MCFD lawyers often use various tactics to maximize child holding period: (Click here for more information.)

Fairness of Adjudication

insufficient accountability and transparency
[Please click the headings to view the contents.]

Accountability

Transparency
absence of timely corrective mechanism Next to the more authoritative judicial adjudication, dispute/complaint resolution procedures also fail. On the surface, there are sufficient dispute resolution procedures in place to allow parents to have fair adjudications of their complaints. In fact, complaint process involving team leaders, local community service managers, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Office of the Ombudsman and Representative for Children and Youth is merely a decoration of fairness and openness. Bureaucrats within MCFD seldom overturn their own decisions and tend to rally behind the back of their colleagues. Bureaucrats outside MCFD can only make recommendations and have no binding authority. Even a provincial court judge's decision can be ignored without any consequence or overturned with or without fresh evidence at the discretion of "child protection" social workers. This is possible because they have the statutory power to remove children again if they believe that return of children will jeopardize child safety. Exercising this power does not amount to contempt of court or an attempt to seek res judicata (relitigation of settled matters).
After all, complaint process is not time efficient. Bureaucrats will have plenty of time to use removed children as pawns to fabricate evidence to incriminate their parents.

active involvement of powerful and influential collaborators We do not believe that "child protection" social workers earn an extra dime when they remove more children. But in doing so, they do create more cases to justify their job and hence enhancing their job security and creating more reasons to ask for a larger budget in the future. The biggest nightmare to civil servants is the elimination of their position because their service is no longer needed. You cannot rely on someone to solve a problem when their livelihood depends on the very existence of that problem. Be mindful that their unique work experience of removing children from their families is not quite marketable in other sectors of the job market.
The power to spend a huge government budget will inevitably attract collaborators. Beyond doubt, money talks. Collaborators include but not limit to the following parties:

MCFD's lawyers are hired guns from external law firms who earn large amount of retainer in representing MCFD in court.
On the other side of the fence, lawyers representing parents who do not qualify for legal aid will milk their clients dry in no time.
Parents on legal aid will get a lawyers paid by tax dollars, who will soon lose incentive to provide best legal representation when their legal aid hours run out.
Psychologists and counselors are paid thousands of dollars for each report they write in assessing and counseling parents. They seldom bite the hands that feed them.
Proprietors who run programs such as anger control management, children who witnessed abuse counseling, women with abusive spouse counseling, receive countless compulsory referrals from "child protection" social workers. In most cases, these counseling fees are paid by government. Sometimes parents are forced to pay for these programs imposed. It is noteworthy to mention that some of these proprietors are ex-social workers.
Foster parents are guaranteed a very decent tax-free income (support as it is called) for "caring" removed children. Many of them lack the skills to earn the same level of income elsewhere. "Child protection" is their bread and butter. After making several misleading responses (including an allegation that MCFD does not pay foster parents at all) in 2009, MCFD reluctantly disclosed in a Freedom of Information application that foster parenting is a 9-figure industry in British Columbia each year.
Supervised visit workers are paid to watch parents when seeing their children on supervised visits. Often, they write bad reports on parents to protect their jobs as "child protection" social workers have the discretion to hire supervised visit workers.
Most of these collaborators become die hard supporters of MCFD's child removal business as their livelihood depends on it.

low risk of exposure and punishment Perpetrators in the "child protection" industry seldom fear any risk of exposure or any personal consequences because of the following reasons:
The successful strategy of using vast public resources to oppress a very small percentage of the population (about 0.2% historically, less than 1% including their extended family members) mainly from the underprivileged class under the pretext of "child protection" minimizes resistance from the populace. Given the fact that the unaffected 99% of the population is ignorant or apathetic, this strategy is extremely effective.
In 21st century Canada where governments ardently speak of freedom, democracy, human rights and natural justice, their wrongdoings are so absurd and serious that most Canadians who have no first hand experience with them will find unbelievable. Those who tell the truth are perceived as disgruntled parents trying to get even. Be mindful that parents who received "services" have the first hand experience, not judges, not service providers, not the yes men in parliament.
Some parents are warned that if they go public to expose the perpetrators, there will be consequences. If you do not believe this, please watch this private video recording posted in youTube on December 18, 2007 called "Child Protection Reform". Most oppressed parents are fearful of retaliation and remain silent. They are from the underprivileged social class and carry little credibility to most people. Their fear is well founded as there are many cases of reprisal. This explains why this serious corruption is so well hidden.
Due to the fact that so many powerful and influential groups are involved, it is unlikely that the government will take serious actions against all of them even if they are convinced there are seriously problems. This will result in harming the clout of government and many lawsuits. An easy course of action open to government is to cover up, use privacy to keep people in the dark and hope that the problem will go away.
Government employees are indemnified by their employer, namely the government (or more precisely taxpayers). Legally, it is very difficult to hold them personally accountable for their wrongdoings. Why should they fear?

At the Micro Level

These prerequisites precipitate a structural corruption rarely known to the public. They are translated into tactics "child protection" social workers used against parents when carrying out their duties of "helping" and "developing" families in need. Supported by credible testimonies and evidence of corruption, our MCFD Tactics and MCFD Surveillance pages provide a good analysis at the micro level. These materials will not be reiterated here. Please view these two pages.

Structural corruption in the "child protection" industry pertains in most English-speaking countries with similar "child protection" law. The article below titled "Organized Crime Operating in the Child Protection System" written by James Roger Brown (released on June 29, 2004) gives a good overview of the situation in the United States.

We emphasize at the onset that not all members of the undermentioned special interest groups are corrupt. We respect that some of them are honestly doing their job and may have helped some children and families in need. However, the presence of these non-corrupted members is insufficient to rectify the corruption. We do not intend to cast insult, promote hatred or create bias against any group, government or individual. We reiterate our objective of making ameliorative changes that better protect children, the rights of their parents and the best interests of families. We hope to provide an overview for education purpose based on facts, published data, empirical evidence, credible testimonies and logical analysis.

Structural corruption in the "child protection" industry is analyzed at the macro and micro level.

At the Macro Level

For corruption to become structural at the macro level, the following prerequisites are required.

Prerequisite Empirical Evidence
presence of financial incentives
[Please click the headings to view the contents.]

Financial incentive is the most common motivating factor in corruption. The following sources provide enticing financial incentives:
Provincial government operating budgets

In many "child protection" cases, taxpayers pay hundred of thousands for each child removed. A good percentage of these children are removed unnecessarily ... (click for more details)

Federal government subsidies
The Canadian federal government subsidizes removal of Native Indian children on a per head basis, hence creating financial incentive to provincial and territorial governments to target the First Nation.

Wealth of Parents with Children Removed
Compared with tax dollars in government budgets, this is a much smaller incentive. But the effects on families are devastating. Few oppressed parents have sufficient wealth that disqualifies them from receiving legal aid. Occasionally, children from more affluent parents are removed. In most cases, parents will commit all their resources to rescue their children from being kept in government "care". Lawyers representing parents thus have the opportunity to milk their clients dry. Opposing lawyers representing MCFD would work in concert to ensure more billable hours are created for their mutual benefits. Many parents end up losing their homes, their job and, above all, their children.

possession of vast financial resource, special and absolute statutory power
Empowered by the provincial Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA), Ministry-employed "child protection" social workers have the unique and near absolute statutory power to remove children from their families. They never require a court order to remove a child. This power has been abused by various parties (such as estranged spouses, police, Crown prosecutors, malicious parties including friends, relatives and neighbors) for purposes other than child protection.
CFCSA allows child protection hearings to circumvent due process in law that offers a fairer trial based on good evidence. This belief is supported by:
Section 66 of CFCSA stipulates that hearings under this Act is civil in nature and may be informal. This may put some parents at ease as they are not being tried for criminal matters that may result in a criminal record. This is an illusion that parents must be aware of. Because the hearing is civil in nature, all legal rights in Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply. The consequence of CFCSA hearings is far more serious to most parents than any penalty in the Criminal Code, namely losing the custody of your children to the government and get a child abuser record in a central state registry in some countries (such as the United States).
Section 67 and 68 of CFCSA specifically allow hearsay "evidence" in "child protection" hearings.
CFCSA is not only lopsided but also vague in providing unambiguous legal definitions in many ways. For instance, it does not define what constitute neglect, or the age limit above which parents are allowed to leave their children at home or to go to school without adult supervision. Silence in law allows room for "child protection" social workers to exercise their discretion and subjective judgment. Criminal code clearly defines the age of statutory rape. Our election act clearly stipulates the age above which a Canadian citizen can vote. Why CFCSA cannot be more specific to avoid abuse of power and double standard?
Parents have little or no representation in the legislation of "child protection" law and policy-making related to "child protection". The Canadian Bar Association published an article titled Child Protection Overload by Michelle Mann. The Legislative Reforms column on the right hand side stated that the "child protection" legislative reform expert panel in the Ontario government consisting of judges, social workers, doctors and other child protection professionals. Parents are excluded.
They have the authority and the motivation (for job security reason) to spend the tax dollars entrusted in their hands for "child protection" activities and hence are in a position to broker tax dollars to various service providers in the industry.
While Canadians are asked to tighten their belts in the midst of an economic recession, the 2009 B.C. Budget Update (announced on September 3, 2009) allocated new fundings to MCFD over a 3-year period to "care for and protection" of vulnerable children. This Budget Update specifically said that the HST (a controversial tax introduced) is needed to provide "social services" that are fundamental to a "high quality of life". This proves how powerful and influential special interests groups are on government.
lack of political will to change "child protection" law Despite what the legislative intent was, the root of this corruption lies on the absolute power to remove children from their families. Atrocities like the Sherry Charlie tragedy and Native Indian residential school are possible because government has this statutory power. An elected assembly can trample a man's right as much as a totalitarian tyranny.
To give a brief overview of how serious the lack of political will is, please click here to watch the news footage called "Children's Aid Society Oversight" made by CHCH News Live @ 5:30.

Although MLA are bombarded by reports from bureaucrats alleging how successful and necessary the "child protection" regime is, law makers are not totally ignorant on the corruption. Theoretically, they are supposed to serve the people. In reality, many elected officials are more concerned on getting more campaign money and votes to win the next election and to further their private interests. This pitfall in democracy applies to all levels of government in nations that practice democracy. Most politicians perceive support of revoking child removal authority politically suicidal as this will inevitably antagonize powerful special interest groups whose livelihood depends on this authority. They lack the farseeing insight to see that these hideous activities will eventually backfire on them in a scale beyond their control and imagination.

Part 1 of Nancy Schaefer's speech
in World Congress on Families V in Amsterdam
Please click here to view Part 2
Please click here to view this footage
in Eagle Forum of Georgia site.
Are there any exceptions? Yes, former U.S. Republican Georgia State Senator Nancy Schaefer spoke on corruption in "child protective services" (CPS) in Washington, D.C. on September 26th, 2008. Please click this link to view the speech transcript and the video. There are elected officials who speak the truth and act according to their conscience and principle, not on chance or party platform. We did not discover this video until October 11, 2009. Mrs. Schaefer precisely and concisely summarized our findings in the Canadian setting.

Against insurmountable odds and political unpopularity, she adamantly speaks against corruption in the "child protection" industry, advocates parental rights and tabled a bill to reform "Child Protective Service" (CPS). The strong points of her bill were compromised. Her political colleagues told her to live with this or to face sanction. This threat was made good and she lost her senatecy. Her speech at the World Congress on Families (August 11, 2009) is linked here. This corruption is epidemic in most English-speaking nations.

Mrs. Schaefer is no longer a senator. In her speech at the World Congress on Families on August 16, 2009, she confirmed that her report on CPS corruption cost her senatecy. She was told by her colleagues that if she helped families under CPS scrutiny, she will lose her job. The perception of political suicidal in supporting revoking child removal authority is unfortunately well founded. Are elected officials supposed to serve their constituents or be a yes man to their party boss? Is there any cause worthwhile losing a political position? Real political career focuses on protecting the best interests of the people, protecting justice and speaking the truth.

Given so much evidence of corruption and abuse of authority, why elected officials do not act? Are they elected by their constituents to protect their best interests, not that of the special interest groups in the "child protection" industry? Despite so many problems arising from state-sponsored child removal activities, why government still wants to retain this notorious child removal authority? To "protect" child? Or to oppress the people if necessary? Are politicians involved and benefit from this industry in any way, directly or indirectly? Why a senator who is honest enough to speak the truth and has the courage and political will to urge reform is sacked, not by the people through a democratic election but by the party boss? Who else are involved in this corruption if we dig deeper? Who else can people rely on to hold those in power accountable. We shudder at the thought. People in high social positions are obliged to act with integrity, honor, kindliness and generosity. Can we find these qualities in our politicians nowadays?

lack of public and media interest Given the demographic of low child birth rate, many British Columbians choose not to have children. To many of these childless people, this corruption is as remote as a problem in the moon.
Despite the massive abuse of authority, the media does not provide enough coverage to attract public attention. Few journalists would believe the full extent of the abuse many parents suffered. Above all, the abuse in many cases is so similar that most journalists find no new hook (fresh information of news value) in airing cases of this nature again.

In our humble opinion, the news value in the "child protection" issue is of significant public interests that warrants the production of a 2-hour special TV program. There is ample amount of empirical evidence and credible testimonies from both parents and professionals from different disciplines that suggest well hidden problems in this industry.

judicial failure to adhere to guiding principles in CFCSA and to provide fair and timely adjudication
[Please click the headings to view the contents.]

The judiciary contributes to the corruption in the following aspects and has brought the administration of justice surrounding "child protection" matters into disrepute:
Part 1 Lawyers, judges, professors, authors,
victims spoke on the industry ...
(view Part 2 in Fairness of Adjudication)
Failure to Adhere to Guiding Principles in CFCSA

The guiding principles in CFCSA govern state-sponsored "child protection" activities. (Click here for more detail.)

Timeliness of Adjudication

CFCSA requires that child protection hearings are conducted in a timely manner. MCFD lawyers often use various tactics to maximize child holding period: (Click here for more information.)

Fairness of Adjudication

insufficient accountability and transparency
[Please click the headings to view the contents.]

Accountability

Transparency
absence of timely corrective mechanism Next to the more authoritative judicial adjudication, dispute/complaint resolution procedures also fail. On the surface, there are sufficient dispute resolution procedures in place to allow parents to have fair adjudications of their complaints. In fact, complaint process involving team leaders, local community service managers, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Office of the Ombudsman and Representative for Children and Youth is merely a decoration of fairness and openness. Bureaucrats within MCFD seldom overturn their own decisions and tend to rally behind the back of their colleagues. Bureaucrats outside MCFD can only make recommendations and have no binding authority. Even a provincial court judge's decision can be ignored without any consequence or overturned with or without fresh evidence at the discretion of "child protection" social workers. This is possible because they have the statutory power to remove children again if they believe that return of children will jeopardize child safety. Exercising this power does not amount to contempt of court or an attempt to seek res judicata (relitigation of settled matters).
After all, complaint process is not time efficient. Bureaucrats will have plenty of time to use removed children as pawns to fabricate evidence to incriminate their parents.

active involvement of powerful and influential collaborators We do not believe that "child protection" social workers earn an extra dime when they remove more children. But in doing so, they do create more cases to justify their job and hence enhancing their job security and creating more reasons to ask for a larger budget in the future. The biggest nightmare to civil servants is the elimination of their position because their service is no longer needed. You cannot rely on someone to solve a problem when their livelihood depends on the very existence of that problem. Be mindful that their unique work experience of removing children from their families is not quite marketable in other sectors of the job market.
The power to spend a huge government budget will inevitably attract collaborators. Beyond doubt, money talks. Collaborators include but not limit to the following parties:

MCFD's lawyers are hired guns from external law firms who earn large amount of retainer in representing MCFD in court.
On the other side of the fence, lawyers representing parents who do not qualify for legal aid will milk their clients dry in no time.
Parents on legal aid will get a lawyers paid by tax dollars, who will soon lose incentive to provide best legal representation when their legal aid hours run out.
Psychologists and counselors are paid thousands of dollars for each report they write in assessing and counseling parents. They seldom bite the hands that feed them.
Proprietors who run programs such as anger control management, children who witnessed abuse counseling, women with abusive spouse counseling, receive countless compulsory referrals from "child protection" social workers. In most cases, these counseling fees are paid by government. Sometimes parents are forced to pay for these programs imposed. It is noteworthy to mention that some of these proprietors are ex-social workers.
Foster parents are guaranteed a very decent tax-free income (support as it is called) for "caring" removed children. Many of them lack the skills to earn the same level of income elsewhere. "Child protection" is their bread and butter. After making several misleading responses (including an allegation that MCFD does not pay foster parents at all) in 2009, MCFD reluctantly disclosed in a Freedom of Information application that foster parenting is a 9-figure industry in British Columbia each year.
Supervised visit workers are paid to watch parents when seeing their children on supervised visits. Often, they write bad reports on parents to protect their jobs as "child protection" social workers have the discretion to hire supervised visit workers.
Most of these collaborators become die hard supporters of MCFD's child removal business as their livelihood depends on it.

low risk of exposure and punishment Perpetrators in the "child protection" industry seldom fear any risk of exposure or any personal consequences because of the following reasons:
The successful strategy of using vast public resources to oppress a very small percentage of the population (about 0.2% historically, less than 1% including their extended family members) mainly from the underprivileged class under the pretext of "child protection" minimizes resistance from the populace. Given the fact that the unaffected 99% of the population is ignorant or apathetic, this strategy is extremely effective.
In 21st century Canada where governments ardently speak of freedom, democracy, human rights and natural justice, their wrongdoings are so absurd and serious that most Canadians who have no first hand experience with them will find unbelievable. Those who tell the truth are perceived as disgruntled parents trying to get even. Be mindful that parents who received "services" have the first hand experience, not judges, not service providers, not the yes men in parliament.
Some parents are warned that if they go public to expose the perpetrators, there will be consequences. If you do not believe this, please watch this private video recording posted in youTube on December 18, 2007 called "Child Protection Reform". Most oppressed parents are fearful of retaliation and remain silent. They are from the underprivileged social class and carry little credibility to most people. Their fear is well founded as there are many cases of reprisal. This explains why this serious corruption is so well hidden.
Due to the fact that so many powerful and influential groups are involved, it is unlikely that the government will take serious actions against all of them even if they are convinced there are seriously problems. This will result in harming the clout of government and many lawsuits. An easy course of action open to government is to cover up, use privacy to keep people in the dark and hope that the problem will go away.
Government employees are indemnified by their employer, namely the government (or more precisely taxpayers). Legally, it is very difficult to hold them personally accountable for their wrongdoings. Why should they fear?

At the Micro Level

These prerequisites precipitate a structural corruption rarely known to the public. They are translated into tactics "child protection" social workers used against parents when carrying out their duties of "helping" and "developing" families in need. Supported by credible testimonies and evidence of corruption, our MCFD Tactics and MCFD Surveillance pages provide a good analysis at the micro level. These materials will not be reiterated here. Please view these two pages.

Structural corruption in the "child protection" industry pertains in most English-speaking countries with similar "child protection" law. The article below titled "Organized Crime Operating in the Child Protection System" written by James Roger Brown (released on June 29, 2004) gives a good overview of the situation in the United States.
We emphasize at the onset that not all members of the undermentioned special interest groups are corrupt. We respect that some of them are honestly doing their job and may have helped some children and families in need. However, the presence of these non-corrupted members is insufficient to rectify the corruption. We do not intend to cast insult, promote hatred or create bias against any group, government or individual. We reiterate our objective of making ameliorative changes that better protect children, the rights of their parents and the best interests of families. We hope to provide an overview for education purpose based on facts, published data, empirical evidence, credible testimonies and logical analysis.

Structural corruption in the "child protection" industry is analyzed at the macro and micro level.

At the Macro Level

For corruption to become structural at the macro level, the following prerequisites are required.

Prerequisite Empirical Evidence
presence of financial incentives
[Please click the headings to view the contents.]

Financial incentive is the most common motivating factor in corruption. The following sources provide enticing financial incentives:
Provincial government operating budgets

In many "child protection" cases, taxpayers pay hundred of thousands for each child removed. A good percentage of these children are removed unnecessarily ... (click for more details)

Federal government subsidies
The Canadian federal government subsidizes removal of Native Indian children on a per head basis, hence creating financial incentive to provincial and territorial governments to target the First Nation.

Wealth of Parents with Children Removed
Compared with tax dollars in government budgets, this is a much smaller incentive. But the effects on families are devastating. Few oppressed parents have sufficient wealth that disqualifies them from receiving legal aid. Occasionally, children from more affluent parents are removed. In most cases, parents will commit all their resources to rescue their children from being kept in government "care". Lawyers representing parents thus have the opportunity to milk their clients dry. Opposing lawyers representing MCFD would work in concert to ensure more billable hours are created for their mutual benefits. Many parents end up losing their homes, their job and, above all, their children.

possession of vast financial resource, special and absolute statutory power
Empowered by the provincial Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA), Ministry-employed "child protection" social workers have the unique and near absolute statutory power to remove children from their families. They never require a court order to remove a child. This power has been abused by various parties (such as estranged spouses, police, Crown prosecutors, malicious parties including friends, relatives and neighbors) for purposes other than child protection.
CFCSA allows child protection hearings to circumvent due process in law that offers a fairer trial based on good evidence. This belief is supported by:
Section 66 of CFCSA stipulates that hearings under this Act is civil in nature and may be informal. This may put some parents at ease as they are not being tried for criminal matters that may result in a criminal record. This is an illusion that parents must be aware of. Because the hearing is civil in nature, all legal rights in Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply. The consequence of CFCSA hearings is far more serious to most parents than any penalty in the Criminal Code, namely losing the custody of your children to the government and get a child abuser record in a central state registry in some countries (such as the United States).
Section 67 and 68 of CFCSA specifically allow hearsay "evidence" in "child protection" hearings.
CFCSA is not only lopsided but also vague in providing unambiguous legal definitions in many ways. For instance, it does not define what constitute neglect, or the age limit above which parents are allowed to leave their children at home or to go to school without adult supervision. Silence in law allows room for "child protection" social workers to exercise their discretion and subjective judgment. Criminal code clearly defines the age of statutory rape. Our election act clearly stipulates the age above which a Canadian citizen can vote. Why CFCSA cannot be more specific to avoid abuse of power and double standard?
Parents have little or no representation in the legislation of "child protection" law and policy-making related to "child protection". The Canadian Bar Association published an article titled Child Protection Overload by Michelle Mann. The Legislative Reforms column on the right hand side stated that the "child protection" legislative reform expert panel in the Ontario government consisting of judges, social workers, doctors and other child protection professionals. Parents are excluded.
They have the authority and the motivation (for job security reason) to spend the tax dollars entrusted in their hands for "child protection" activities and hence are in a position to broker tax dollars to various service providers in the industry.
While Canadians are asked to tighten their belts in the midst of an economic recession, the 2009 B.C. Budget Update (announced on September 3, 2009) allocated new fundings to MCFD over a 3-year period to "care for and protection" of vulnerable children. This Budget Update specifically said that the HST (a controversial tax introduced) is needed to provide "social services" that are fundamental to a "high quality of life". This proves how powerful and influential special interests groups are on government.
lack of political will to change "child protection" law Despite what the legislative intent was, the root of this corruption lies on the absolute power to remove children from their families. Atrocities like the Sherry Charlie tragedy and Native Indian residential school are possible because government has this statutory power. An elected assembly can trample a man's right as much as a totalitarian tyranny.
To give a brief overview of how serious the lack of political will is, please click here to watch the news footage called "Children's Aid Society Oversight" made by CHCH News Live @ 5:30.

Although MLA are bombarded by reports from bureaucrats alleging how successful and necessary the "child protection" regime is, law makers are not totally ignorant on the corruption. Theoretically, they are supposed to serve the people. In reality, many elected officials are more concerned on getting more campaign money and votes to win the next election and to further their private interests. This pitfall in democracy applies to all levels of government in nations that practice democracy. Most politicians perceive support of revoking child removal authority politically suicidal as this will inevitably antagonize powerful special interest groups whose livelihood depends on this authority. They lack the farseeing insight to see that these hideous activities will eventually backfire on them in a scale beyond their control and imagination.

Part 1 of Nancy Schaefer's speech
in World Congress on Families V in Amsterdam
Please click here to view Part 2
Please click here to view this footage
in Eagle Forum of Georgia site.
Are there any exceptions? Yes, former U.S. Republican Georgia State Senator Nancy Schaefer spoke on corruption in "child protective services" (CPS) in Washington, D.C. on September 26th, 2008. Please click this link to view the speech transcript and the video. There are elected officials who speak the truth and act according to their conscience and principle, not on chance or party platform. We did not discover this video until October 11, 2009. Mrs. Schaefer precisely and concisely summarized our findings in the Canadian setting.

Against insurmountable odds and political unpopularity, she adamantly speaks against corruption in the "child protection" industry, advocates parental rights and tabled a bill to reform "Child Protective Service" (CPS). The strong points of her bill were compromised. Her political colleagues told her to live with this or to face sanction. This threat was made good and she lost her senatecy. Her speech at the World Congress on Families (August 11, 2009) is linked here. This corruption is epidemic in most English-speaking nations.

Mrs. Schaefer is no longer a senator. In her speech at the World Congress on Families on August 16, 2009, she confirmed that her report on CPS corruption cost her senatecy. She was told by her colleagues that if she helped families under CPS scrutiny, she will lose her job. The perception of political suicidal in supporting revoking child removal authority is unfortunately well founded. Are elected officials supposed to serve their constituents or be a yes man to their party boss? Is there any cause worthwhile losing a political position? Real political career focuses on protecting the best interests of the people, protecting justice and speaking the truth.

Given so much evidence of corruption and abuse of authority, why elected officials do not act? Are they elected by their constituents to protect their best interests, not that of the special interest groups in the "child protection" industry? Despite so many problems arising from state-sponsored child removal activities, why government still wants to retain this notorious child removal authority? To "protect" child? Or to oppress the people if necessary? Are politicians involved and benefit from this industry in any way, directly or indirectly? Why a senator who is honest enough to speak the truth and has the courage and political will to urge reform is sacked, not by the people through a democratic election but by the party boss? Who else are involved in this corruption if we dig deeper? Who else can people rely on to hold those in power accountable. We shudder at the thought. People in high social positions are obliged to act with integrity, honor, kindliness and generosity. Can we find these qualities in our politicians nowadays?

lack of public and media interest Given the demographic of low child birth rate, many British Columbians choose not to have children. To many of these childless people, this corruption is as remote as a problem in the moon.
Despite the massive abuse of authority, the media does not provide enough coverage to attract public attention. Few journalists would believe the full extent of the abuse many parents suffered. Above all, the abuse in many cases is so similar that most journalists find no new hook (fresh information of news value) in airing cases of this nature again.

In our humble opinion, the news value in the "child protection" issue is of significant public interests that warrants the production of a 2-hour special TV program. There is ample amount of empirical evidence and credible testimonies from both parents and professionals from different disciplines that suggest well hidden problems in this industry.

judicial failure to adhere to guiding principles in CFCSA and to provide fair and timely adjudication
[Please click the headings to view the contents.]

The judiciary contributes to the corruption in the following aspects and has brought the administration of justice surrounding "child protection" matters into disrepute:
Part 1 Lawyers, judges, professors, authors,
victims spoke on the industry ...
(view Part 2 in Fairness of Adjudication)
Failure to Adhere to Guiding Principles in CFCSA

The guiding principles in CFCSA govern state-sponsored "child protection" activities. (Click here for more detail.)

Timeliness of Adjudication

CFCSA requires that child protection hearings are conducted in a timely manner. MCFD lawyers often use various tactics to maximize child holding period: (Click here for more information.)

Fairness of Adjudication

insufficient accountability and transparency
[Please click the headings to view the contents.]

Accountability

Transparency
absence of timely corrective mechanism Next to the more authoritative judicial adjudication, dispute/complaint resolution procedures also fail. On the surface, there are sufficient dispute resolution procedures in place to allow parents to have fair adjudications of their complaints. In fact, complaint process involving team leaders, local community service managers, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Office of the Ombudsman and Representative for Children and Youth is merely a decoration of fairness and openness. Bureaucrats within MCFD seldom overturn their own decisions and tend to rally behind the back of their colleagues. Bureaucrats outside MCFD can only make recommendations and have no binding authority. Even a provincial court judge's decision can be ignored without any consequence or overturned with or without fresh evidence at the discretion of "child protection" social workers. This is possible because they have the statutory power to remove children again if they believe that return of children will jeopardize child safety. Exercising this power does not amount to contempt of court or an attempt to seek res judicata (relitigation of settled matters).
After all, complaint process is not time efficient. Bureaucrats will have plenty of time to use removed children as pawns to fabricate evidence to incriminate their parents.

active involvement of powerful and influential collaborators We do not believe that "child protection" social workers earn an extra dime when they remove more children. But in doing so, they do create more cases to justify their job and hence enhancing their job security and creating more reasons to ask for a larger budget in the future. The biggest nightmare to civil servants is the elimination of their position because their service is no longer needed. You cannot rely on someone to solve a problem when their livelihood depends on the very existence of that problem. Be mindful that their unique work experience of removing children from their families is not quite marketable in other sectors of the job market.
The power to spend a huge government budget will inevitably attract collaborators. Beyond doubt, money talks. Collaborators include but not limit to the following parties:

MCFD's lawyers are hired guns from external law firms who earn large amount of retainer in representing MCFD in court.
On the other side of the fence, lawyers representing parents who do not qualify for legal aid will milk their clients dry in no time.
Parents on legal aid will get a lawyers paid by tax dollars, who will soon lose incentive to provide best legal representation when their legal aid hours run out.
Psychologists and counselors are paid thousands of dollars for each report they write in assessing and counseling parents. They seldom bite the hands that feed them.
Proprietors who run programs such as anger control management, children who witnessed abuse counseling, women with abusive spouse counseling, receive countless compulsory referrals from "child protection" social workers. In most cases, these counseling fees are paid by government. Sometimes parents are forced to pay for these programs imposed. It is noteworthy to mention that some of these proprietors are ex-social workers.
Foster parents are guaranteed a very decent tax-free income (support as it is called) for "caring" removed children. Many of them lack the skills to earn the same level of income elsewhere. "Child protection" is their bread and butter. After making several misleading responses (including an allegation that MCFD does not pay foster parents at all) in 2009, MCFD reluctantly disclosed in a Freedom of Information application that foster parenting is a 9-figure industry in British Columbia each year.
Supervised visit workers are paid to watch parents when seeing their children on supervised visits. Often, they write bad reports on parents to protect their jobs as "child protection" social workers have the discretion to hire supervised visit workers.
Most of these collaborators become die hard supporters of MCFD's child removal business as their livelihood depends on it.

low risk of exposure and punishment Perpetrators in the "child protection" industry seldom fear any risk of exposure or any personal consequences because of the following reasons:
The successful strategy of using vast public resources to oppress a very small percentage of the population (about 0.2% historically, less than 1% including their extended family members) mainly from the underprivileged class under the pretext of "child protection" minimizes resistance from the populace. Given the fact that the unaffected 99% of the population is ignorant or apathetic, this strategy is extremely effective.
In 21st century Canada where governments ardently speak of freedom, democracy, human rights and natural justice, their wrongdoings are so absurd and serious that most Canadians who have no first hand experience with them will find unbelievable. Those who tell the truth are perceived as disgruntled parents trying to get even. Be mindful that parents who received "services" have the first hand experience, not judges, not service providers, not the yes men in parliament.
Some parents are warned that if they go public to expose the perpetrators, there will be consequences. If you do not believe this, please watch this private video recording posted in youTube on December 18, 2007 called "Child Protection Reform". Most oppressed parents are fearful of retaliation and remain silent. They are from the underprivileged social class and carry little credibility to most people. Their fear is well founded as there are many cases of reprisal. This explains why this serious corruption is so well hidden.
Due to the fact that so many powerful and influential groups are involved, it is unlikely that the government will take serious actions against all of them even if they are convinced there are seriously problems. This will result in harming the clout of government and many lawsuits. An easy course of action open to government is to cover up, use privacy to keep people in the dark and hope that the problem will go away.
Government employees are indemnified by their employer, namely the government (or more precisely taxpayers). Legally, it is very difficult to hold them personally accountable for their wrongdoings. Why should they fear?

At the Micro Level

These prerequisites precipitate a structural corruption rarely known to the public. They are translated into tactics "child protection" social workers used against parents when carrying out their duties of "helping" and "developing" families in need. Supported by credible testimonies and evidence of corruption, our MCFD Tactics and MCFD Surveillance pages provide a good analysis at the micro level. These materials will not be reiterated here. Please view these two pages.

Structural corruption in the "child protection" industry pertains in most English-speaking countries with similar "child protection" law. The article below titled "Organized Crime Operating in the Child Protection System" written by James Roger Brown (released on June 29, 2004) gives a good overview of the situation in the United States.
Remarks

Are children really protected in such a corrupted bureaucracy overwhelmed by self-serving service providers in the "child protection" industry? At the expense of a huge financial cost, exploitation of families in need and at times destruction of families unfairly caught in the system, some may. Can the problem be solved by imposing vigilant restraints and reforming the existing system? Given the lopsided law and the unfair precedents established over time, no. The corruption is irreparable. The National Post article on June 12, 2009 titled ""Children's Aid Society workers should be reined in, critics say" and the speech of ex senator Nancy Schaefer in World Congress on Families V in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on August 11, 2009 contain many valid points and real life examples to support the foregoing.

Child protection does not equal child removal. Radical and extreme as it sounds, a responsible government should not rely on child removal authority to protect children. Child safety and the rights of family are not mutually exclusive. Should it become necessary, there is due process that gives authorities power to separate abusive parents from their vulnerable children. Parent rights can be asserted and protected without compromising the safety of children. CFCSA is redundant, counter productive and costly. It sets a standard that the current bureaucracy fails to meet. There are better solutions to protect children and their families. If politicians are interested to find a solution that will free them from the nightmare of being blamed for having children abused, injured or killed while in "care", please talk to us. We believe that there are all-win solutions that many "child protection" social workers will find acceptable. We may not be able to offer an ideal model. But we are confident that we can suggest a better model.

Read the National Advisory at this same link

Structural Corruption in the "Child Protection" Industry"

Too Close for Comfort: Baby Torn from Mother Grieving for 15-Year-Old Son

Too Close for Comfort: Baby Torn from Mother Grieving for 15-Year-Old Son | RH Reality Check

If you read along to the fourth paragraph, written in bold, you will understand the harm caused to all involved when in comes to children. This is the reason so many mother's don't get the medical care and the mental health care needed, as they NO LONGER TRUST the Medical Professional's that are SUPPOSED to be there to help them. They are SUPPOSED to be there for the Mother and child's health, NOT the States. HIPPA is a crock of bull and ALL confidentiality is thrown out the window. All it takes is the rubber stamp of a Judge and ALL your confidential counseling session's and everything in your life is out in the open. Who can you trust when you can't be open to your Medical Health Professional's? FAMILY, period.

When my daughter was born almost exactly 15 years ago as I write this, I was a first-time mother who'd been through an incredibly arduous pregnancy to give birth to a much-wanted child.

I was also a successful professional, a wife and daughter, a highly functional individual, an older sister who'd very much helped raise three younger brothers and ....a woman who'd suffered from and been successfully treated for clinical depression for many years.

That very last part, however, was what defined me--the whole of me--in the eyes of the hospital. Some hours after giving birth, I was overcome by emotion and began crying, expressing to the nurse attending me my nervousness at being a new mom and the fragility of a new baby. It was a normal scene, probably, for many women, whose level of exhaustion at giving birth combined with elation and a dramatic and immediate shift in hormones might lead them to experience an equally dramatic expression of emotions.

Knowing this intellectually, I was therefore shocked and dismayed when the next thing I knew, I was being "evaluated" by the social worker to see whether it would be okay to send my daughter home with me. There was a rather amazing leap--and here I mean in a matter of minutes after the nurse left my room--from me being hormonally teary to me being a potential basket case in the eyes of the hospital, in large part because clinical depression was marked on my record. I immediately stopped confiding in the nurses about anything and just wanted to leave the hospital with my daughter and my then-husband and get home. The effect was exactly the opposite of what you would want: Instead of reaching out to health professionals with concerns, I distrusted them.

This memory was brought home to me by a story today in The Guardian about a breastfeeding mother in the United Kingdom whose newborn baby was forcibly taken from her and "put into care" for six days.

According to The Guardian:

Verna Joseph, who has a history of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, says she was pushed to the ground, restrained by security guards, and her baby taken in full public view during a scuffle at King George hospital in Redbridge to which police were called.

She was then transferred by ambulance to Goodmayes hospital, North-East London NHS foundation trust, in Ilford, but was not told until several hours later that she was being compulsorily admitted for an assessment under the Mental Health Act.

Despite repeated pleas for news about her three-week-old daughter, Madeleine, she was not told what was happening to her, or given any opportunity to make her own arrangements for her care.

Joseph, age 37, is a mother of nine who was granted asylum in Britain following rape and torture in St Lucia.

Why was her baby taken from her? Because she had recently learned that her 15-year-old son had been killed in St Lucia on February 14th, the same day Madeleine [her new daughter] was born by caesarian section.

But she felt unable to grieve for her son because she feared the ramifications of showing normal grief:

"I was scared that if I cried too much, they would think I was depressed. A psychiatrist asked about me crying and I told him: 'It's natural to cry when your son has been killed, isn't it?' He said: 'Yes, it's natural to cry.' I knew there was nothing wrong with me."

So in grieving for her son, she was, in her own words, "left traumatised" by an enforced and irrational week-long separation from her new baby, during which she was unable to breastfeed or provide breast milk due to a lack of facilities.
Joseph told the Guardian:
"I feel very let down by the trust. They treated me like an animal. I was afraid I would never see my daughter again. I kept asking: 'Where is she, how is she getting on?' They told me nothing. When I got her back, six days later, she was clinging to me."
According to Joseph's medical notes, psychiatrist Andrew Biggs at Goodmayes concluded on the 16 March:

"I cannot find symptoms of acute mental illness of any severity sufficient to justify detaining this woman currently." He said she had a history of illness with unstable moods and "may react badly to crises".

Joseph's story is fantastic in its absurdity.

According to The Guardian, she was admitted to King George hospital on March 7th after suffering abdominal pains related to her caesarian. She left three days later as the hospital was unable to give her a room where her daughter could stay.

She returned at the hospital's request on March 11th and was seen by five people, including a psychiatrist and two mental health social workers.

During a break in the "assessment," Joseph said:

"I saw this man coming up to me shouting to get away from the baby. I said to him: 'What are you talking about, it's my baby.' He said: 'I've come to take the baby.'

"He pushed me and I fell. The two security men put my hands behind my back. I was crying and asking: 'Why have they taken my baby?'"

So from step 1, being seen at the hospital for a medical problem to step 2, having her baby taken away without cause or warning, Joseph went from being a woman in need of medical attention to an "unfit mother."

Cristel Amiss, of the Black Women's Rape Action Project in the U.K., said:

"The worst thing you can possibly do, if you are concerned about a mother's mental health, is to take her baby off her, not tell her what is happening, and not allow her to breastfeed."

Experts point to the fact that such abrupt removal is traumatic not only for the mother but also for the infant. Morgan Gallagher, chair of Nursing Matters, said: "A three-week-old, exclusively breastfeeding baby will be traumatised by the abrupt removal of the mother. It will be further traumatised by being bottle-fed by a stranger.In these cases, the needs of the baby should come first." No mention in the article about the ramifications for her other children, but one can only imagine their stress as well.

In the court case against the hospital, evidence submitted rom the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Prison Service's advisers underscore that close and frequent contact of mother and newborn is "vital" in forming an attachment.

Joseph's lawyer, Nicola Daniel, said:

"There is a basic human right that a mother and child should not be separated at that crucial bonding time."

But this is increasingly the way we are treating women, both here in the United States and apparently in the United Kingdom as well. Women are first judged on their willingness and ability to bear children anytime they are pregnant, irrespective of the personal, economic, and social conditions they face. If they seek to manage or control the formation of their families, via contraception or in the case of unintended and untenable pregnancies, abortion, they are vilified. If they show the slightest signs of humanity in terms of stress--like, say, expressing grief at the death of a son--they are apt to be immediately pathologized. If they are poor, immigrants, or struggle with addiction, they are criminalized. The less "prominent" you are, the more likely you will be subject to labeling and abuse by the system we have. I am trying to imagine a scenario in which, like the much-touted example of former Senator Rick Santorum and his family, a single mother seeks to take home an hours-dead stillborn to grieve and is not called crazy, and yet an immigrant woman who has been raped, traumatized and tortured and undergoes a normal process of grieving for a teenage son, is jailed.

The irony is that while we are so willing to pathologize women, we are deeply unwilling to provide mental health services to those in greatest need so that they can feel real feelings and also function more effectively in our society. That to me is the greatest pathology of all.

June is National False Allegation's Month-Rally in New Hampshire June 22, 2011

Are you aware that the month of June is National False Allegation's month?

A Rally is scheduled in New Hampshire for June 22nd, 2011 at the Concord, NH Statehouse form 8-4.

The Rally is on behalf of children and father's, but I implore ALL family member's screwed over by the NH Court's to attend. It isn't just father's being screwed over due to false allegation's of abuse and neglect. Mother's and grandparent's are also falsely accused, alienated from their children and grandchildren. Some by lying spouses, some by corrupt DCYF worker's AND our infamous Judicial system.
This is a Rally where everyone need's to unite. Our children and grandchildren are the ones who suffer the most. As Father's, Mother's AND Grandparent's, we must ALL stand together to fight the corrupt judicial system and the corrupt DCYF of New Hampshire. We must think of the best interest's of our children and grandchildren, where as, it's quite obvious the court's AND DCYF don't. If there's money to be made, you can be sure the court's AND DCYF won't hesitate to allow the suffering of an innocent child.

I'm begging everyone to PLEASE stop fighting amongst each other and fight the REAL ENEMY. The Court's and DCYF who instigate the Destruction of our Families!

Monday, June 20, 2011

When the State Breaks a Man by William Norman Grigg

When the State Breaks a Man by William Norman Grigg

When the State Breaks a Man

by William Norman Grigg

Recently by William Norman Grigg: 'You Can No Longer Think of Yourselves as Peace Officers': Militarizing 'Lockdown High'

"How much does the State weigh?" Josef Stalin asked an underling who had been ordered to extract a confession from an enemy of his regime. Stalin understood that, given enough time, agents of State-sanctioned cruelty can break any man.

Thomas J. Ball, who committed suicide by self-immolation on the steps of New Hampshire's Cheshire County Courthouse on June 15, was a man who had been broken by the State. A lengthy suicide note/manifesto he sent to the Keene Sentinel, which was published the day after his death, described how his family had been destroyed, and his life ruined, through the intervention of a pitiless and infinitely cruel bureaucracy worthy of Stalin's Soviet Union: The Granite State's affiliate of the federal "domestic violence" Cheka.

Ball and his family were casualties in what he calls a federal "war on men." He wasn't exaggerating – and he has a lot of company.

The federally subsidized domestic violence industry operates a bit like the hypothetical Von Nuemann Machine: Placed into a material-rich environment, it will sustain and replicate itself by destroying and assimilating everything within its field of influence. One useful sci-fi example is the robotic Planet Killer from the Star Trek episode "The Doomsday Machine" – an immense, funnel-shaped engine of destruction propelled by the remnants of the worlds it destroys (according to one deutero-canonical source, the Planet Killer uses the same material to generate replicas of itself).

That monstrous device was "self-sustaining as long as there are bodies ... for it to feed on." The same is true, of course, of the State and all of its components – including what Dr. Baskerville calls "The Divorce Regime."

As Baskerville points out in his horrifying study Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, "it is no exaggeration to say that the existence of family courts, and virtually every issue they adjudicate – divorce, custody, child abuse, child-support enforcement, even adoption and juvenile crime – depend on one overriding principle: remove the father." When a family is broken up, each child "becomes a walking bundle of cash" – not for the custodial parent, but for a huge and expanding population of tax-fattened functionaries who "adopt as their mission in life the practice of interfering with other people's children."

Thomas Ball, like millions of others, learned that the people who choose this profession have an unfailing ability to exploit even the tiniest opportunity to invade a home and destroy a family.

One evening in April 2001, Mr. Ball suffered a momentary lapse of patience with a disobedient four-year-old daughter and slapped her face. He left the house at his wife's suggestion. When he called her a short time later, he learned that his wife – "the type that believes that people in authority actually know what they are talking about" – had called the police, who told her that her "abusive" husband wasn't permitted to sleep in his own home that night. Ball was arrested at work the following day. Under the conditions of his bail, he wasn't allowed to ask his wife what had possessed her to call the police.

Years later Ball would learn that if his wife hadn't called the police and accused her husband of abuse, she would have been arrested as an accessory – leaving the children at the mercy of New Hampshire's utterly despicable Division of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF).

Dot Knightly, who tried vainly for years to win custody of three grandchildren seized on the basis of spurious abuse and neglect accusations, recounts how a DCYF commissar contemptuously batted away both her pleas and her abundant qualifications to serve as a custodial caretaker: "Nobody gets their kids back in New Hampshire. The government gives us the power to decide how these cases turn out. Everyone who fights us loses."

Despairing over being wrested away from everyone he loved, Dot's grade-school age grandson Austin – who had literally been dragged screaming from his grandparents' home – tried to commit suicide. This led to confinement in a psychiatric hospital and involuntary "treatment" with mind-destroying psychotropic drugs. For New Hampshire's child-snatchers, the phrase "nobody gets their kids back" translates into a willingness to destroy the captive children by degrees, rather than allow any successful challenge to their supposed authority.

The instant the police intervened in the domestic affairs of Thomas Ball's household, his family's destruction became inevitable. The officers were required – not by law, but by official policy that followed profit incentives created by Washington – to make an arrest. In a similar fashion, and for the same reason, prosecutors are forbidden to drop domestic abuse cases under any circumstances.

Ball recalled that he was eventually found not guilty, much to the visible disgust of the be-robed dispenser of official injustice who presided at the trial. But this made no material difference: His wife – who divorced him six months after his arrest – was now a consort of the State, his children were its property. His innocence notwithstanding, Ball was given an open-ended sentence of serfdom – and the prospect of being sent to debtor's prison – through government-mandated "child support" system. Furthermore, he wasn't permitted to see his children, despite the fact that a jury had found him innocent.

"I lost visitation with my two daughters when I got arrested. One was the victim-the other was the witness. After a not guilty, I expected to get visitation with my girls. But the divorce judge ... decreed that counseling was in order and they would decide when we would reunite."

The policy options that are rewarded by federal subsidies don't include allowing an innocent man to reunite with his children. Consigning him to the State-aligned "domestic counseling" industry – which was apparently co-designed by August Mobius and Franz Kafka – is a much more profitable alternative.

"Judges routinely use our children as bargaining chips," Ball explained. "Get the adult into counseling, continue the case for a year, and then drop it. This will open up the docket for the new arrests coming in next week. These judges that use our children are not honorable. Which is why I never use the term 'Your Honor' any more. I just call them judge."

Ball's experiences, once again, are all but identical to those endured by millions of others. Dr. Baskerville offers a potent and infuriating summary:

"A parent [generally a father] whose children are taken away by a family court is only at the beginning of his troubles. The next step comes as he is summoned to court and ordered to pay as much as two-thirds of even more of his income as `child support' to whomever has been given custody. His wages will immediately be garnished and his name will be entered on a federal register of `delinquents.' This is even before he has had a chance to become one, thought it is likely that the order will be backdated, so he will already be a delinquent as he steps out of the courtroom. If the ordered amount is high enough, and the backdating is far enough, he will be an instant felon and subject to immediate arrest."

The sinews of this system are the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OSCE) and its state-level affiliates. Some idea of the scope of the Regime's war on fathers is found in this comparison: In 2007, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the spearhead of the "war on drugs," employed a total of 4,600 armed field agents; the OSCE at the time boasted more than 60,000 enforcement agents, all of whom are permitted to carry firearms under the "Deadbeat Parents Enforcement Act."

When brought to bear against an isolated individual, the weight of this State apparatus will eventually destroy the victim. With each year, Ball's financial condition deteriorated and he became deeply mired in intractable despair. By the time he ended his life on June 16, Ball was a 58-year-old Vietnam Era Army Veteran who had been unemployed for two years. Owing to the fact that he couldn't pay the amount of child support extorted from him, Ball was quite likely going to be sent to jail on the following morning.

His only consolation, the company of his children, was sadistically withheld from him. The unfathomably arrogant and completely unaccountable functionaries who did so are people who have learned how to monetize the misery of the innocent.

Ball's manifesto is a work of tortured eloquence. Although marred by occasional errors of diction, it is not the chaotic outpouring of a deranged personality. It is cogently organized and laden with impressive amounts of detailed research. The lucidity Ball displayed in explaining his decision to kill himself by the most painful method imaginable underscores not merely the depth of his despair but also of the entrenched corruption and viciousness of the people who had demolished his family.

The leitmotif in Ball's letter is the phrase "Second Set of Books," a phrase that refers to the "policies, procedures and protocols" actually followed by bureaucrats and their enforcers in defiance of the "First Set of Books" – that is, the federal and state constitutions.

"You never cover the Second Set of Books your junior year in high school," Ball pointed out. That because we are not suppose to have a Second Set of Books." The Second Set of Books contain writings that are too holy to be inspected by mere Mundanes. Those of us who don't belong to the Sanctified Brotherhood of Official Coercion are required to behave as if there is some continuing relevance to the First Set of Books. Maintaining this official fiction is necessary in order to convince the credulous – well, those who pay attention to such matters – that it is possible to receive redress of grievances through the same system that has aggrieved them.

Like millions of other victims of the State's "domestic violence" apparatus, Ball came to understand that the system cannot be reformed from within:

"On one hand we have the law. On the other hand we have what we are really going to do-the policies, procedures and protocols. The rule of law is dead. Now we have 50 states with legal systems as good as any third world banana republic. Men are demonized and the women and children end up as suffering as well. So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses. The Second Set of Books originated in Washington. But the dirty deeds are being carried out by our local police, prosecutors and judges." Rather than voting them out, Ball insists that it is necessary to "Burn Them Out" through arson attacks on the appropriate bureaucratic facilities.

He hoped that his self-immolation would be the symbolic spark that would ignite that revolution – just as a similar desperate act by Tunisian street vendor Mohamad Bouazizi sparked a nation-wide rebellion against the fetid dictatorship ruling that country.

While I hope that God has granted rest to Ball's tortured soul, and pray for the comfort of his family, it must be said that his proposed strategy is as tragically mistaken as his suicide.

Rather than attacking the architectural manifestations of the State, we should withdraw from contact with it. In other words, don't call the police under any circumstances, and insulate your family, to the extent possible, from any contact with "welfare" bureaucracies of every kind. This will mean being prepared as parents to take appropriate evasive action when one of the State's tentacles reaches out, with malign intent, in the direction of one's children. It also means being prepared and able to employ purely defensive force where all other alternatives have failed.

Human beings have an instinctive, primordial fear of fire. Burning to death is a prolonged agony in which pain receptors operate at full capacity. The torment Thomas Ball experienced was sufficient, in his mind, to eclipse the horrors of death by fire.

On the same day that this tortured man poured gasoline on his body and struck a match, pundit Ann Coulter used her syndicated column to emit a thick stream of snotty abuse at Rep. Ron Paul and others who insist that the State must be removed entirely from any role in regulating or overseeing marriage and the family.

Hey, Ann – do you get the point now?

June 20, 2011

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.

Copyright © 2011 William Norman Grigg

The Best of William Norman Grigg

Supreme Court DCF Ruling Brings Hope To Thomaston Couple Charged with "Neglect In The Future"!

Fox CT: Supreme Court DCF Ruling Brings Hope To Thomaston Couple -- CTnow

Hopefully this case will set precedence whereas my daughter was charged with "Neglect in the Future" and neither her or the father of her daughter were allowed to contest the charges nor speak in court!

Grandparents blog-Dedicated to Austin, Isabella and My Knight, Murdered by Illegal Palliative Care

Unbiased Reporting

Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Structural Corruption in the "Child Protection" Industry"

Structural Corruption in the "Child Protection" Industry"

Too Close for Comfort: Baby Torn from Mother Grieving for 15-Year-Old Son

June is National False Allegation's Month-Rally in New Hampshire June 22, 2011

Monday, June 20, 2011

When the State Breaks a Man by William Norman Grigg

Supreme Court DCF Ruling Brings Hope To Thomaston Couple Charged with "Neglect In The Future"!

Disclosure and Confidentiality Notice

Total Pageviews