In identifying these points from the comments written it was clear to me that many of the subjective ideas offered stem from personal experiences and were not executable suggestions for regaining trust. Here are suggestions that readers made yesterday.- MCFD would have to demonstate that it practicing precaution, respect, integrity, common sense, safety, accountability, fulfilling what was promised and treating others as you would have them treat you.
- MCFD must correct its mistake and give the Bayne children back to their parents.
- When the Bayne children are returned, Mary Polak and Leslie du Toit must make a public apology on behalf of the Ministry.
- MCFD needs to reaffirm publicly it's own first and eleventh value statements: 1). To establish a value/principle-centred ministry that is respected and trusted 2). To sustain partnerships of trust and respect.
- Establish a process to appeal removals immediately. This includes second opinions on all findings and applies to all existing cases.
- MCFD must publicly admit that they have made a mistake instead of finding ways again and again to circumvent the judicial system.
- The provincial government should have a judge do an inquiry into this and the entire system.
- MCFD must do an internal review to determine how to ensure that such errors do not occur again.
- MCFD must make public its revised procedure for gathering information and writing assessments.
- Child apprehension must be limited to verifiable drug, crime or abuse related cases rather than potential risks.
- MCFD must require every social worker to be registered with the college.
- MCFD must stop interfering with parents who have regained custody of their children.
- Risk assessments cannot be written based on old records but rather current data and current interviews with children.
- Because people and families grow and change, the old information should be discarded after a certain number of years.
- Risk assessments must not be founded on biographical data to infer that having been abused as a child transfers to being an abuser.
- MCFD must demonstrate to parents that it honours the truth. Erroneous data must no longer be contained in files and stated in court as true.
- Court orders and legal actions must have brief time limits that cannot be abridged or broken.
- Children's best interests must apply to staying with parents when formal police charges have not been laid.
- Parents must be informed about their rights to ask for interim custody.
- Demonstrate professionalism by ending the practice of embarassing children by talking to them at high school.
- Files on children must be sealed when the child reaches age of majority so that implications are not implied about heir parenting when they have children.
- MCFD must make a complaint process less restrictive and definitely not record a complaint on the person's record.
- MCFD must demonstrate that it is willing to listen to clients.
- MCFD must change its own self perception from a criminal justice and policing agency to service providers.
A few comments spoke to the difficulties of regaining trust under present circumstances:
- An enormous grassroots movement is required to demand many of the actions stated above.
- The Canadian public will have to change from complacency to militant social reformer.
- So many current complainers against MCFD come from welfare and lower income families who lack the resources to contest.
- Sadly many more children will be removed from homes before the ripple becomes a movement.
- The HST protest illustrates that the public can be roused to action.
It is remarkable what a relatively small group of contributors can come up with. Excellent start. Bravo!
ReplyDeleteGiven the long list, it might be an idea to group like-minded items and continue to refine the list.
Adding points of input from children who have been through the system would be well advised. In some points, minor wording changes would ensure they could not be interpreted as being contrary to the wellbeing of children.
For example, the item about pulling kids out of schools so as not to embarrass them could be refined.
The Ministry takes advantage of the school system to eliminate the chance parents will first coach children as to what to say if MCFD notified parents in advance of the interview.
Parents say children are isolated without witnesses, asked leading questions, and are not able to review what they have been asked and how their answers are written down. There is also no audio or video record to verify if the children answered questions under duress, questions were leading, or other unsavory tactics were used by interrogators.
For the purposes of interrogating children without the parent's permission or knowledge, this can include the the child be advised of their rights and can choose an advocate or relative or friend be present who is not a concern of the Ministry.
Those under 12 who are too young to understand should automatically have an advocate, a witness, a child-protection-aware psychologist the parents can choose, that the interview be audio and videotaped and subsequently transcribed for parents to review the information to permit response. This benefits all parties and still protects the integrity of information obtained from children.
Parents MUST be notified in advance of the interview in order to be given the right of refusal, then MCFD would have to get a warrant as per CFCSA. Parents should be able to demand appropriate safeguards be in place for the examination of children, not only to preserve the integrity of the information collected, but to ensure the correct practices have been used in the gathering of that information.
Where young babies are concerned, multiple day-long supervised visits with the social workers planning a removal present, should be mandatory before final removal decisions are even considered. An SBS diagnosis without further context is an example of an incomplete picture of evidence. Absence of this evidence should not be allowed to make a prima facie case.
Parents can be viewed as a special interest group wishing to minimize the impact to them at the "expense" of the children. This is the top excuse by child protection agencies for not wanting to make changes.
Lastly, a devil's advocate view (preferably one from a legal standpoint) would be necessary to scrutinize the list.
Ron; I commend you for bringing forth so many ideas. I agree with many of the points made. The irony is that the drafters of the current CF&CSA thought that they were covering many of the points made by your bloggers. Look at the guidelines of the act and the detail of timelines and all those safeguards are there. I think that what is clear is that the people who wrote the act were naive and they had no idea how the childrens ministry actually malfunctions in practice. They reckoned without the obstructive and time-wasting culture of the courts and the legal profession. They reckoned without the fact that justice is only within reach of the rich. They never realised that the very complexity of the act that they were drafting would ensure that the ministry could do whatever it liked and no-one with any authority would care enough to do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteI would like to pick up on your theme of Aug 22nd,enitled IF. May I now add WHAT IF & IF ONLY.
WHAT IF Dr. Colbourne had said, what if this is an accidental injury, should I do a differential diagnosis to include that possibility. WHAT If she had said maybe I should get another opinion from a forensic pathologist to see whether the bump claimed by the parents could cause it.
WHAT IF the social workers had done an unbiased profile on the Baynes and found that they did not fit a picture of abusers. WHAT IF they had said WHAT IF the doctor could be mistaken, Why do we not get a forensic opinion.
WHAT IF the Baynes lawyer had said it does not make any sense to go to mediation. Get to trial as quickly a possible and save your money for court. You can save yourself a lot of money by following my directions about how to get medical reports. Just as the Baynes did a lot of the running around for Doug Christie.
WHAT IF Bruce McNeill had listened to Finn Jensen two years ago when he was told that the case could not succeed with proper defense.WHAT IF he had returned the boys as advised and the girl six months later. WHAT IF Loren Humeny had done a risk assessment showing all the good points of the Baynes.
Now I am sure that the ministry has come nowhere near providing a case to support a CCO.and the children will be returned. When that happens, there will be plenty of IF ONLYs.
Dr. Colbourne IF ONLY I had done a differential diagnosis. Humeny IF ONLY I had done a proper assessment. McNeill IF ONLY I had listened to counsel. Finn Jensen IF ONLY they had taken my advice. Leslie Dutoit, Mary Polak etc IF ONLY we had listned to Ron Unruh, Ray Ferris and Marvin Hunt. Mary-Ellen Turpel-Lafonde IF ONLY they had listened to my staff. All the staff under McNeill IF ONLY we had fought harder to do the right thing. All of the rest of us IF ONLY we could teach these people about integrity, compassion and courage.
1) In Ontario,unwritten(?)procedure is to remove/apprehend children,serve court papers to parents on Friday after 4pm. This leaves parents hands tied for approx. 43 hours,till Monday morning,when courts and legal assistance is available.This also gives the Society 43 hours alone with a child,for "interviews".To a child,being taken by strangers,often forcibly, to an unfamiliar location,to be asked detailed, often confusing or disturbing questions by complete strangers about family etc,is often a truly traumatizing experience.Even more traumatic when separated from siblings.This practice must stop.Children should be interviewed in a familiar environment by a person of trust(Family doctor,a member of the child's clergy,even the child's teacher.)It should be mandated that all interviews with a child are ALWAYS audio AND video recorded.
ReplyDelete2)Children and infants who have been apprehended must be given a complete physical exam within 12 hours of apprehension by a Family Physician/Pediatrician familiar to the child, in an environment familiar to the child, whenever possible.
3)In a situation where a child/ren must be temporarily housed outside of their family home,
parents must be allowed to have extended family or friends come forward, and barring a criminal record of crimes of violence or against children,these individuals must be given preference over "foster homes".The family offering to temporary house the child/ren must not be open to undo scrutiny, or a lengthily and traumatic process of interrogation/ application,nor harassment of any sort,nor should they have to follow rules and regulations that would not be the norm in a regularly functional household.
"Foster care" should always be viewed as temporary,with speedy reunification of the family at the soonest safest opportunity as the primary goal.
4)Any volunteer drivers should have a working knowledge of the English language, and be trained in the appropriate installment and use of the car-seat their charges are using.
5)Social workers must have some personal experience working or volunteering directly with children/infants.To have a Social worker who has no familiarity with children or infants outside of an apprehension/supervision capacity is far to common and completely unacceptable.
6)A family's size, income level or source, and parental education history should NEVER be deciding factors in Society involvement.It should not be based on presumptions surrounding abuse the parent may have suffered in their own history.Financially disadvantaged,poorly educated,parents of multiple children,or parents who where abused themselves, are just as capable of cherishing, protecting and providing for their children as any other parent.The Society needs to recognize that everyone's value system is different. Society involvement should be based solely on evidence of injury, neglect or abuse of the child in question.
7)If,in previous years,the Society has visited a family to investigate a concern or accusation,and has found the accusation/s to be false,or concerns to be groundless,then the Society may not use records of those visits or copies of the accusations/concerns in any proceeding court document or investigation. Once a visit/incident is found to be groundless or without merit,it should be closed to any further action,at any time in the future. Either there is an issue and it is addressed appropriately at that time,or there is no issue and no need for further involvement or reference.
Please fell free to modify this....
Peace,
Suamia Familia.
Thank you all 3 of you so far...
ReplyDeleteOntario, this is interesting reading. I will process it. Ray, thanks for picking up on the What If theme. Anon, thanks for the suggestions.
In cases where the primary allegation is a medical diagnosis of abuse, a full comprehensive review of medical history, including all known side effects of conditions, medications, vaccinations, treatments must be immediately available to parents and workers. A full differential diagnosis work up must be completed prior to removal. Hospitals must no longer be viewed as a place of safety, an uninterested party in these proceedings. They are Corporations that may very well have a vested interest in pointing fingers at caregivers. Professionals making allegations must be Publicly named, fully vetted for conflicting/competing interests, in addition to being professionally/personally/criminally liable for false allegations. The concept of Good faith immunities can and have been abused for far too long.
ReplyDeleteMany of the ideas suggested are already in the Act, policy and the spirit of law. Service providers in the child protection industry manage to circumvent all check points and blatantly abuse the power and trust society has so unduly given.
ReplyDeleteSpecial interests will laugh when they read these suggestions. They know better than anyone that it will not stop them from aggrandizing under the pretext of "child protection". Among them, the most laughable one is to hire "a judge to do an inquiry into this and the entire system". Isn't it what the provincial government had already done? What are the Gove Inquiry and the Ted Hughes report all about? Does this help? No. These inquiries are nothing more than an insincere gesture of reform. If there is a public outcry, the government can beautifully say that look we have done something people.
Despite their infinite wisdom, judges have never been a recipient of "child protection" services. In fact, they are one of the apex service providers. It makes no sense at all when oppressed parents are excluded in legislative and policy making process.
Empirical evidence suggested that short of revoking the general child removal authority per CFCSA, I am afraid that none of these will work.
Anon 2:28 PM posts correct information that I agree with, which is a truly unfortunate state of affairs. Howeer, the public cannot be discouraged just because there does not appear to be an immediate path to fix the above listed problems.
ReplyDeleteRemember, slavery, child labour, Nazism and residential schools are examples of large institutions that were abolished, so this abominable child protection will also have its day.
It is important for parents to be aware of these things that will happen to them, and take steps to minimize the damage while working to have their children returned.
Parents do have power even if they may not be rich, but they need to be diligent in documenting proceedings and evidence as the Baynes have done.
Parents need to ask the above questions in person and in writing, and later use the words of arrogant social workers and other third parties against them. Failing that, provide your experience to other parents that come after you so they may benefit from your experience.
It does work to be extraordinarily persistant in complaining and following up, but not going public too soon. One young parent I know had had a CCO reversed due exclusively to such persistance. The route I used was unique as I represented myself, I wrote letters and later included them in affidavits in a series of small applications. This was effective in having my children returned. This also, oddly, silenced MCFD personnel and lawyers as they knew all their correspondence would turn up in affidavits and become part of the court record. MCFD reacted by communicating only verbally, assuming they were not being recorded.
I'm sure anyone in Chilliwack and Hope who are now involved with the ministry, when they search for names of the same social workers the Baynes have encountered may get a heads up.
It would be highly beneficial for parents who have survived child protection intervention and who have had their cases closed to publish their experience.
Sites like Canada Court Watch, CPS sucks, pa-pa.ca, the Baynes facebook and other similar sites all contribute to exposing corrupt child protection practices.
One path might be to assume the above "rules" exist and simply publish the violators on the various websites. Child protection hates blogs and informative websites that help parents.
Case law around the world must be watched diligently and highlighted for parents to take advantage of when their situation matches circumstances.
The difficulty is not in finding solutions, it is organizing it and distilling it down to a useable format. The "devil is in the details" goes the old saying.
Abolish the practice of taking children from their parents, unless it is proven that the parents abused them, and not just a spank. Don't make parents and children suffer a fate worse than death (almost?) without due process.
ReplyDeleteExpose each and every individual who participates in what amounts to the crime of kidnapping. If someone is going to be given such great responsibility, then they must be accountable.
Make it possible to sue those who are guilty of negligence, incompetence, and malicious acts. And make it really, really hurt financially so that they think twice. All who are responsible should pay the price.
The biggest fear that child protection employees - and those making a living off child protection, at the expense of children and families have - is to be held accountable. Make them accountable for destroying lives. Expose them.
Blogs like this are immeasurably useful in that regard. The momentum is building, and that is what matters. Child protection authorities may be laughing, but not for long.
Network with like-minded individuals, and help each other spread the news about child protection injustice (there is plenty of news in that regard).
ReplyDeleteThere are already many, many people around the world who are working together to end this abominable system. But beware of double agents who want to undermine the fight against child protection corruption. Do not immediately trust people; make them earn your trust.
Anon 8:27 PM, I appreciate that for those who have experienced the removal of their children for any length of time, it feels like a kidnapping. Perhaps children feel like they have been kidnapped. So much confusion and sorrow. But in fact it is not kidnapping. Lawsuits are always an option but the fact is you have social workers trying to fulfill their jobs of keeping children safe so proving that this was maliciously done may be next to impossible. I am all for accountability in practice and if we are going to see changes made, that is an area that must be clearly prescribed. I do trust that this blog can encourage honest appraisal of and beneficial suggestions to our child welfare policies and operations even while it's primary purpose has been to advocate for the reunion of one family.
ReplyDeleteRon,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I must affirm what the commenter from Ontario said is true. CAS across the Province does indeed make a habit of "apprehending" children at 4p.m. or later on a Friday. Unfortunately, it has also been adopted by other agencies along with apprehensions occurring on parents or children's Birthdays.
Secondly, it seems that while some people have put forth what they perceive as helpful decisions, they too have fallen prey to the positive spin from Child Protection Agencies. One reader suggested mandatory day long visits with the very workers planning a removal. It simply will not work. It will only amount to torture. The removal WILL happen, but now the parent will cling to hope, thinking they can prove they are a good parent. Another commentator stated that child labour had been abolished. A little history lesson is in order. JJ Kelso, a reporter in Toronto started us down this long, sorry road we are currently on. He was dismayed by the plight of poor children in Toronto who were being forced into child labour. Thus was born (many name changes later) CAS. Very Canadian to be thinking of others.
Making suggestions about how to change the system is a noble start. What we cannot allow is for us to be stalled by the feeble excuses offered up by Child Protection. One example of an excuse is "We do not allow recording because it can be manipulated." In reality, technology makes detection of alterations ridiculously easy and the only people with deep enough pockets to even attempt such a thing is Child Protection. It easy easy to continue to argue that a no recording policy should remain in place since the Courts still maintain the same rule in most places.
The day will come when Canada's most shameful contribution to the world will be denounced. Until then, Canadians must unite to pierce the veil of secrecy surrounding MCFD(CAS,CPS,Etc.)
I wish to address one final issue and I am interested in readers comments on the subject. Whenever someone suggests that child removal authority be removed, invariably someone responds that this will lead to an increase in children harmed and/or killed. A more cerebral approach to the question requires answers to several other questions before entertaining such an automatic response. How many children are harmed and/or killed by care providers? Don't forget to consider that not just anyone can be a care provider. These people have been scrutinized, trained and approved by Child Protection Workers(CPWs). Could CPWs "protect" more children by providing services to families?
Would CPWs be better able to do their job if they spend more time in the field and less in Court? There are many more considerations, but I will let others take over from here.
None of the large variety of rules and suggestions would be necessary if children were not inappropriately removed in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize the Ontario Children's Aid Society originated so long ago with J. J. Kelso. The wikipedia page on this journalist-turned-child advocate makes for very interesting reading.
"Saving" children that are clearly in need, does not give any human being the right to treat fellow citizens that pay their wages like dirt.
The lack of integrity and professionalism of child protection staff reveals the worst in human nature when they believe they cannot be held accountable, and the general public can be kept in the dark about their nefarious activities.
Perhaps Michale Moore can do a movie on child protection. In his last movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story" there is a segment where a corrupt judge sentences teens to lengthy terms in a privately operated detention facility for insignificant infractions, all for money, all in the name of capitalism.
The story segment segways from a young man who's dream is to be a pilot, to the airline industry talking to pilots about their embarrassingly low wages.
Movies are great educators of the public.
Until we make a fundamental shift in our philosophy with respect to the role of government, nothing will change with respect to the abuse of child protection authority. It is no coincidence that Doug Christie is a Libertarian. Parents and others should take a good hard look at how things might change under a Libertarian government. As long as government has such great power, that power will be abused.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if this, now infamous, family court judge took away anyone's children?
ReplyDelete"Naked photographs of a senior Manitoba judge engaged in bondage are part of a man's complaints to legal watchdogs about the judge's past and that of her husband, CBC News has learned.
A formal complaint was filed in July with the Canadian Judicial Council against Lori Douglas, associate chief justice of Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench (family division). Another complaint has been lodged with Manitoba's Law Society against Douglas's husband, Jack King, 64, a Winnipeg family lawyer.
The complainant, computer specialist Alexander Chapman, 44, alleges that King harassed him in 2003 by pressing him to have sex with Douglas, who was a lawyer at the time.
Over several weeks, Chapman said King showed him about 30 sexually explicit photos of Douglas, showing her naked in various forms of bondage, in chains, with sex toys and performing oral sex."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/08/31/judge-manitoba-douglas.html#ixzz0yFaTRS7K
It is also important to read CBC's rationale for printing the story whose link you provide.
ReplyDelete"We recognize that in reporting stories, harm can be one of the consequences. But we are guided by the principle that important stories in the public interest must be told, and in doing so we make our best efforts to minimize any harm that might ensue."
CBC also says, "Read more about our decision to publish this story."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/08/31/judge-manitoba-douglas.html#ixzz0yFxYznUT
CBC explains further,
ReplyDeleteInside the CBC Cecil Rosner
"Why we are telling the story of the judge and the nude photos
Last Updated: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 | 4:58 PM CST
By Cecil Rosner CBC News
"Complex stories rarely come to us as neat little packages that are immediately ready to broadcast.
There is usually evidence to weigh, facts that need confirming, motivations that require questioning and widespread deliberation and investigation to determine what the facts mean.
Only after completing that process are we ready to go to air.
We also recognize that in reporting stories, harm can often be one of the consequences. Some people pressure us not to report things.
Cecil RosnerCecil Rosner
Cecil Rosner is Managing Editor of CBC Manitoba.
But we are guided by the principle that important stories in the public interest must be told and, in doing so, we make our best efforts to minimize any harm that might ensue.
We believe this story about the judge whose lawyer-husband had published nude photos of her on the internet has important implications for the public.
The issues here deal with a lawyer's duty to a client; the duty of other legal professionals to report matters of concern to the relevant professional associations; the duty of a potential judge to disclose pertinent matters in advance of his or her selection; and the responsibilities of judicial selection committees as they make their choices.
Also of concern here is what the public is entitled to know about all these things.
Different standards
We know that running this story will have real impact on certain people's lives. That's true of many of the stories we do.
In this case, some of the details are graphic and damaging. That is why the possibility of harm had to be weighed carefully against the need for us to share facts with the public.
We didn't come to the conclusion to broadcast this story in isolation. We consulted with more than a dozen legal figures — former justices, law professors who teach ethics and instruct judges, as well as experts on journalistic ethics.
We revealed to them important details of the story but not the identities of the principals involved. All of them believed we had a duty to inquire and report on these matters, and to pursue accountability in determining how a judge was appointed in these circumstances.
The standards for judges are much more stringent than for most of us. Their appointments and elevation require much more in the way of due diligence.
Our interest in this story is not the specific and arguably prurient details that put this judge's appointment into question, but the system that allowed it to go ahead.
That was our tough choice. Photographs are a key part of this story, and we have described them to you, but we won't show them. We have judged the harm that publishing them would do far outweighs the public need to see.
Again, our focus is to seek accountability.
Every piece of evidence that came to our attention was carefully tested and we made efforts to confirm every fact independently, regardless of where it came from.
We also conducted significant due diligence on every player and fact in this case and we have been transparent about that. This story is not an attempt to advance the cause of any particular person, but to explore an issue of importance.
Any news organization has a social responsibility to its audience to seek out important truths that will serve the public's interest. It also has a responsibility to minimize unnecessary harm while so doing, to be careful and sensitive in the presentation of controversial stories.
Finding the right balance is never a simple matter. Our ultimate aim, as always, is to present the relevant issues to you and allow you to make your own decisions."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/08/31/f-rosner-why-publish.html#ixzz0yFyN95FX
To be sure, this is an incredibly juicy story. Certainly this is the modern day equivalent of the public stoning of someone to death. This is worthy of its own blog article (I notice the press has picked up on this like wildfire.)
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt this story will fuel a drive to locate the photos CBC decided not to link. Is the judge's face showing? Exactly how decadent are these images?
It would seem to be certain there will be one less judge in the world fairly quickly. Once should also assume that this is just one judge who got "caught" and that their certainly must be more cases like this the unsuspecting public has not yet found out about.
Could some of her past judgments be overturned as a result?
The repercussions could be that a lot of people that have come before this judge in court can claim any judgments that bear any similar components (privacy issues, divorce, infidelity etc.) that her personal life would serve to color her judgments and produce an "unfair" decision.
It is interesting to see the level of legal advice CBC has available in deciding whether or not it would be held liable for publishing allegations rather than waiting for the outcome of an investigation. The risk being, if they didn't publish the story first and take the credit, another news agency would beat them to the punch.
Now, if these images have been on public display for the past 8 years, and long before Judge Lori Douglas became a judge, how is it possible for someone not to have noticed this beforehand? Why just the fellow who received $25,000 and who signed a non-disclosure agreement NOT to mention it to anyone?
I would like readers swap "judge" with "parent." Should parents who have had their children removed have their names published on the internet to warn potential employers of past transgressions?
I ask, because an anonymous person sent mail to others telling them my children were removed, and the result in one case was I was immediately dropped as a volunteer for an agency that helped children. I have no evidence the loss of my job and clients during the same period were also the result of such disclosures, however the timing does seem curious.
My children were returned with no finding of any need of protection and I later obtained full custody of them. The nefarious tactics social workers used to remove my children were not brought to light. The damage has been done.
Someone who has had their children removed even though they have not committed a crime has an even greater stigma than internet photos.
Perhaps we as parents are going about this all wrong in coming up with complex answers to reform child protection. If we have good reason to believe child protection employees are sacrificing their integrity to remove children, what do these people do in their private lives that could be used against them so they can be disabled for life?
After all, one less social worker would mean hundreds of children not removed by that person.
I am not interested in witch hunting. What intrigued me was the connection between child protection cases and a judge whose integrity might have been compromised long ago by a personal value system that might skew subsequent rulings. Further, I was interested by CBC's rationale for publishing which was essentially, "we had a duty to inquire and report on these matters, and to pursue accountability..."
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/08/31/f-rosner-why-publish.html#ixzz0yIOdR1P8
It's very important, and interesting, that this judge - Lori Douglas - was a FAMILY court judge. The allegations are serious, and involve more than just improper behaviour (e.g., the porn site photos).
ReplyDeleteAs far as the secret lives of social workers go, if parents are being spied on, and this is being used against them, why not turn the tables, since knowledge is power?
Like I said above in response to the 8:54 writer, I myself am not interested in witch hunting, or social worker sordid story hunting. It strikes me as stooping to a level which has been criticized earlier.
ReplyDeleteHi viewers online, I'm Alfonso Vázquez from Mexico. I'm here to share my testimony about how i was helped to get my wife back. I was a cheat and my wife caught me several times. I tried fixing myself and each time i ended up cheating over and over again. I guess i didn't realise what she meant to me until she had left me alone. I began to find a way to get her back but nothing seems to work out perfectly till i came across an article about Lord Zakuza who helped a lot of people globally to get their relationships back. I made contact with him on his WhatsApp number via +1 740-573-9483 and he assured me that my wife will come back to me within 48 hours with his powerful magics and i paid 410 Euros for the materials needed for the work. Surprisingly, my wife came back home after 2 days saying that she still loves me and i swore never to cheat on her anymore. All thanks to Lord Zakuza. Email him via ( lordzakuza7@gmail.com ) or WhatsApp number via +1 740-573-9483.
ReplyDelete