1. Lisa Arlin, Surrey, B.C., Canada (August 1996) Synopsis: parent committed suicide after child removal and denial of access; mother gave consent to continuing custody order under duress and the threat of cancellation of visitation; archived on October 14, 2010
2. The Rahman case in British Columbia, Canada (April 09, 2005) Synopsis: Shaken Baby Syndrome, children returned; case closed, archived on May 31, 2010
3. Renee Terrell, Henderson, Kentucky, U.S.A. (October 2006) Synopsis: child removed due to alleged neglect; mother killed social worker in the last supervised visit; archived on January 4, 2011
4. The Bayne's case in Hope and Surrey, British Columbia, Canada (October 2007) Synopsis: Shaken Baby Syndrome, 2 older children returned and re-removed when parents went public, case open, court is expected to make a ruling on MCFD's CCO application in 2010, archived since inception of this page
5. Misha Peterson, Vancouver, B.C., Canada (September 22, 2008) Synopsis: a 16-year old teenage mother was tasered twice by Vancouver City Police when her child was removed; a removal explained as the result of her 17-year-old boyfriend breaking a supervision requirement; case status is unknown; archived since inception of the PAPA page
6. Heath and Deborah Campbell, New Jersey, U.S.A. (January 2009) Synopsis: an American couple in New Jersey, U.S.A. named their children after Nazi leaders; it is believed that the names drew the attention of the local "child protection" agency; there are also suggestions that their children were removed due to unspecified family problems; case status unknown; archived on February 1, 2009
7. Li's child removal, Vancouver, B.C., Canada (January 2009) Synopsis: new born infant believed to exhibit Shaken Baby Syndrome in Richmond, B.C., Canada, both children removed including a non-Canadian 6-year old child visitor from Beijing, China, no criminal charge laid on either parent, older child returned to parents after being escorted by "child protection" social worker to Beijing, infant eventually returned to parents after they passed a lie detector test, archived on February 1, 2009
8. Sister of a Templeton Secondary "hit list" teen removal, Vancouver, B.C., Canada (June 29, 2009) Synopsis: kid sister of a high school teen removed when he was released on bail for a death-threat and weapon charges; sister was returned after the family went public, case status unknown; archived since inception of the PAPA page
9. Lisa and Anthony Demaree child removal, Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A. (aired on September 18, 2009) Synopsis: 3 children removed after parents took nude innocent photos and developed them in Wal-mart; court returned children; parents sued the state and Wal-mart for defamation; case status unknown; archived since inception of this PAPA page
10. Hong Kong couple from Toronto arrested for kidnapping their own children in Vancouver, B.C., Canada (aired on October 26, 2009) Synopsis: 4 children removed from Hong Kong Chinese immigrants in Toronto due to messy home; CAS obtained permanent custody of 2 children; parents took these children during their last visitation prior to their adoption and attempted to return with them to Hong Kong; parents were arrested in Vancouver en route to Hong Kong and were charged of kidnapping; case status unknown; archived since inception of this page
11. Leah and Steve Flagg's child removal, Kamloops, B.C., Canada (December 2009) Synopsis: 3 younger children removed before Christmas 2009 when 20-year-old problematic son returned home from MCFD care; children were eventually returned when the problematic son left; case status unknown; archived on May 6, 2010
12. Chris Martell, Saskatoon, Canada (June 7, 2010) Synopsis: 22-month-old Native child Evander Lee Daniels died in foster care; father Chris Martell walked marathon walks to raise money for legal fees to seek answers for his son's death; case open, archived on July 28, 2010
13. Richard Williams Another B.C. Native child dies in foster care, Port Alberni, B.C., Canada (September 10, 2010) Synopsis: Native infant died in foster care; Port Alberni RCMP investigation regarding the death; archived on September 11, 2010
14. Elizabeth Mort and Alex Rodriguez Losing a Baby Over a Poppy Seed (November 2, 2010) Synopsis: Elizabeth Mort and Alex Rodriguez of Newcastle, PA lost their 3-day old infant Isabella to Lawrence County Children and Youth Services because the mother had tested positive for drugs while in the hospital. The false positive had been caused by an "everything" bagel with poppy seeds that Elizabeth had eaten two hours before going to the hospital ... Statement of Elizabeth Mort, archived on November 17, 2010; status unknown
15. Tracy Watson, Renee Stalker, Olivia Stalker, Shafer Watson, Riley Watson v. County of Santa Clara, et al (Judgment handed down on April 4, 2011, San Jose, California, the U.S.A. stemmed from an incident on June 29, 2005) Synopsis: Federal Jury in San Jose, CA awarded $3.25 million (including $2 million in punitive damages for the officers’ reckless abuse of authority) to the Watson-Stalker family whose children had been unlawfully taken by San Jose police officers, William Hoyt, Craig Blank and at least five other uniformed officers, as retaliation for asserting their rights as citizens, archived on April 8, 2011
[This PAPA page was added on February 9, 2009, last revised on April 9, 2011.]
When a case goes public, the names are published. Also, these are but a tiny, tiny sampling of problems than occur on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteThe costs, if this information was known, would add a significant blow-me-away factor that would surely outrage taxpayers.
In the Baynes case for example, how about if we take a quick look at Mr. Finn Jensen's invoices for the past four years, and lets see how justified the collective expenses are for a judge to NOT find that shaken baby occurred. An expenditure of million dollars of taxpayer dollars to get to the point to find out a single counselling course is seen as sufficient to address all concerns, is what I would call 'over-the-top.'
This is the sort of thing you write your MLA and MP to bring to their attention and ask to curtail this ridiculous child protection business.
If we have immediate public outrage over drivers being billed an insurance premium by ICBC three years after getting only one ticket, why is there not a similar public reaction to the daily shenanigans of child protection?
The answer is, it is because of the secrecy with which child protection conducts its business. Courts might as well be closed to the public, because the press does not attend these rubber-stamped baby snatching hearings.
What I as a citizen would like to see is a synopsis of ALL cases by MCFD to see how common these examples of over-the-top response by child protection officials. Congratulations to website such as PaPa and FixCAS and Canada Court Watch in archiving and centralizing these cases.
True examples of parental abuse where charges result is rare. THAT becomes news and names are published. This fact is more evident in non-western countries that do not randomly remove children for something as silly as Q-tip in the ear violations or removals due to bath photos in Wal Mart.
Bravo high five!
DeleteHow truly chilling and terrifying how many families are torn apart forever and will never have a normal life again or ever feel safe after Child Welfare intrusion and oppression,and the stupid little things kids get taken away for! Reading their agenda is horrifying as well, and these cases are beyond heartbreaking.Shaken Baby Syndrome is the new "reason" they seem to be giving now, ironically the SAME "diagnosis" disgraced pathologist Dr.Charles Smith used to destroy innocent families.
ReplyDeleteYes, and Charles Smith should be in jail, but he's living free and easy in Victoria, BC with a woman who is getting MILLIONs of $$$$$ of money to do research regarding youth. So it looks like he is still, at least peripherally, involved in the child protection industry.
ReplyDeleteCharles Smith was directly responsible for sending innocent parents to jail. These parents lost their children (child protective services scooped them up, the remaining ones that weren't the victim of an accident (which Charles Smith deemed a murder by the parent)). Then they went to jail, as an accused child / baby killer. Imagine how horrible that would have been.
With freedom of information act, wouldn't it be possible to document any legal costs? As mentioned already, wouldn't it be terrific to have a tally of individual apprehensions and all the costs broken down; wouldn't it be enlightening to have a tally of lawyers earnings and all those related court costs? I like the idea of finding out what accusations are being used to intervene in Canadian family lives.
ReplyDeleteWhat is all too common in all bureaucracies and ministries of gov't is the broad subjective powers which are being used against our own citizens. Things like someone - the police, the neighbour, the teacher, etc etc - heard, saw, thought maybe there was possibly . . . not enough, too much . . . are enough to have your children snatched or the family car impounded.
The practise of accusing someone of wrongdoing based simply on suspicion without requiring the laying of charges is shocking. The practise of requiring those accused to push for court opportunities to prove their innocence while not charged is bizarre. However, it's not so bizarre when we realize that there is no law which most accused have broken. It's just up to the bureaucrat.
As I write, I am listening to the news of similar practises in immigration.
I have read some of the fixcas.com accounts. I know an Alberta judge ordered a child returned but the ministry refused and the judge finally charged the head man with contempt. Then there are dozens of other CANADIAN cases which strike terror because, it is all up to the bureaucracy to do whatever they feel is good and then the people have to figure out how to help themselves.
Anon at May 18, 2011 10:40 PM, you are so right. But the vast majority of the public seems pretty clueless, probably because they are too busy trying to earn a living and there is no media that they read or watch that gives them the truth about what goes on in government and in the courts. Judges are getting away with so much these days. Every once in a while a story will blow up in the media, but people soon forget it and it's business as usual. A couple of judges in Vancouver, BC have been in the news for some pretty shocking behavior and judgments, but they are still working away with no real penalty or punishment.
ReplyDeleteI'm referring to Justice Linda Loo, who let the vicious murder of Irene Thorpe go pretty much unpunished, and Judge Peter Leask, who has made some pretty crazy decision regarding the Hell's Angels (many people think he's on the take, but there is no real proof of that). He was the judge that went on a rant, swearing like a drunken sailor.
---
Leask resorted to expletives in March at the trial of a man
charged with trafficking cocaine. The judge disagreed strongly
with the prosecutor's premise that the accused had hidden the
drug in his own storage locker.
"He'd have had to have been out of his "f"
mind to store it in his own locker, all right?" the judge told the prosecutor. He also referred to "the whole f thing" and used the words "god" and "s."
A group of schoolchildren on an educational tour witnessed the exchange.
The council decided not to take more severe action against Leask, noting he had called a special session of court the day after the outburst to apologize unreservedly for his behavior.
----
Two men convicted of killing a pedestrian while racing in their cars on the streets of Vancouver won't spend a day in prison, and some members of the victim's family are livid.
Bahadur Singh Bhalru, 23, and Sukhvir Singh Khosa, 20, were handed conditional sentences of two years – to be served at home, so they can continue to work and go to school.
Khosa ran over Irene Thorpe during a street race with Bhalru in November 2000.
They were convicted in October of criminal negligence causing death. B.C. Supreme Court Judge Linda Loo sentenced them on Monday.
"She just gave them a slap on the hand, and a pat on the back and do it all over again," said Nina Rivet, Thorpe's sister.
Loo also put the men on probation for three years and revoked their driver's licences for five years.
"It's a joke," said Diane Levair, another of Thorpe's 11 brothers and sisters. "He gets the privilege to live with his parents. Where's my sister?
"She's in a box in the ground. They get the comforts of home."
Khosa's car was travelling at more than 120 km/h in a 50 km/h zone when he lost control and slammed into Thorpe as she walked along the street.
Loo told the family she is sympathetic to their loss, but "the harm caused by the accused is but one of the many factors in determining a just sentence."
She took into account the men's ages, their clean criminal records and the fact they were hard workers. She said they weren't "committed street racers" and doubts they would re-offend.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2003/02/04/streetracers_sentence030204.html
I was reading a publication the other day that stated that BILLIONS in spent every year on child protection in the USA. No wonder they are bankrupt. So much of government has devolved into a corrupt make-work project, where they are now stealing our children and making us all pay for the privilege. It's truly insane.
ReplyDeleteI ran into a SW the other day. Asked how many kids they had removed working front lines over the last 12 months. Their answer? ZERO. How many families involved with over that time? Didn't keep track - guessing dozens.
ReplyDeleteSo don't go generalizing all work or workers.
CP SW 7:55 AM, you are busy this morning. I accept your point. Painting with a wide brush was not what this post was about, merely citing the cases and alluding the workers involved with those.
ReplyDeleteAnon at May 19, 2011 7:55 AM,
ReplyDeleteDid you ask that same social worker if they were familiar with the Baynes' case (not sure how they coudn't be, as it is high profile, and everyone in their line of work should know about it). And if they do know about it (and again, how couldn't they), why aren't they doing something to really protect children, by speaking out against this atrocity, that is, the case of 4 children wrongfully kept from their parents?
So much is of the media praises child protection, we don't need to do it here - it is being done everywhere else and that is what is responsible in large part for the Bayne's situation - because people have been duped by all the good publicity child protection is always giving itself.
The fact that one relatively small blog is letting the truth out about one family (and every once in a while, other families) really seems to bother those in child protection. Why is that? Why can't they just accept the criticism and do something to change the situation? Instead, they always make comments such as the one above, and claim that (even though there may be all these horror stories), this blog is somehow wrong, or the people writing on it are somehow wrong because some anonymous person spoke to some unnamed social worker and that unnamed social worker supposedly hasn't taken one child from their parents.)
No wonder parents who are victims of child protection are frustrated. They try to get a small voice in a world of pro-child protection, and that voice is continually stomped on, criticized for not being "balanced" enough.
Even if it was only ONE family that this nightmare had happened to, it would be, should be, enough to inspire outrage from all social workers, if they truly care about protecting children. Why aren't they, I ask again, why aren't they speaking out, and speaking for, the Baynes? Not ONE of them has gone public to speak for the Baynes. That is just shameful, and highly indicative of the nature of these child protectors.
And if just ONE of them has spoken out (and the ONLY one I know of that is condemning MCFD is a retired social worker, Ray Ferris), please remind us who you are, or at least where your published comments are. It's just mind boogling that we can have this level of corruption and zero whistleblowers.
"Parents are allowed 3 1-hour supervised visits per week. "It is like visiting someone in prison." said the parents. They do not know where their children live and are not allowed phone access. Their older daughter complained to the parents that she was bullied in foster home. This was heard by the supervised visitation worker and the conversation with parents was immediately stopped. Visitation was later suspended. Parents proposed that the children be placed in friend's home but was declined by MCFD.
ReplyDeleteMr. Li lost his patience and said: "Is this child protection? They (MCFD) took her for just 10 days and there is already problem. I raise my daughter for 6 years without an incident. Who is really protecting children?" (end of extraction). "
An excerpt from the page on the Li family and their horrific encounter with MCFD and our wonderful Children's Hospital (which rakes in countless millions, via lotteries, and myriad other fundraising activities, by appealing to good people's love of children).
Ron - I am not a SW.
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:38 - Nope I didn't ask if the worker knew about the Baynes. I wasn't interrogating the SW. I was simply asking if they had removed. I hear what you are saying about "unjust" removals and expecting SW's to be upset about that.
Social workers probably don't want to admit they have "removed" these days. They may even have been instructed to deny that they have removed children. I can definately see this being a protocol, especially given the bad PR they might get given the fact that there are so many unjustified removals.
ReplyDeleteAnon at 7:37 am,
ReplyDeleteIf you get a chance when you are talking to social workers, please ask them if they are aware of any social workers in BC who have ever (besides Ray Ferris) complained in a meaningful way about MCFD practices (e.g., removing children and not returning them when it is clear that they should).
Ron,
ReplyDeleteIf people are commenting here anonymously, it could be for a very good reason - e.g., they have been victims of government agencies who have ignored due process. We've seen the horrific results of this in the Bayne case, so I would give these people the benefit of the doubt regarding being anonymous. It might be an idea to ask the person before publishing their location. Just a thought. You can publish this comment or not, it's up to you. Thank you.
I hear you Anon, and your point is well taken at this end. I will be more careful about this in the future.
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 7:55 AM,
ReplyDeleteDoes that (so-called "zero-removal" by the sw) include caseloads that involve disrupting & splitting up families, with the baby or child initially staying with one parent?
In at least two situations I am personally close to, the "social worker"/caseworker had coerced the mother to sign papers (Report to Court) falsely accusing the father of sundry atrocities, against the mother's objections.
The SW was able coerce the mother to sign this by threatening to remove her baby if she didn't, and falsely claiming that the judge would take her baby away if the father was present in court; of course the mother didn't know the SW was just using pressure tactics to get her to sign the papers to get the court order to be used against the family.
Then the SW quickly went to court to get a court order to keep the father away so that the couple could not even communicate to figure their way out of this trap. The father is not notified of the court order application as is legal required, so that he cannot object in court. They get around the notification requirement by making an announcement on the Courthouse PA system during the proceedings in court; of course the father is not at the Courthouse to hear this announcement. Apparently this sneaky move is used a lot.
The court order, called a Supervision Order, was a ten point set of commandments, all aimed at the mother: "you will not do this/ do that etc", to her surprise, setting her up for who knows what schemes and traps in store for destroying the family and getting them to be later customers of their tax-payer-paid "services" such as supervised visits, counselling, parenting courses, foster-care, etc.
In one case, the mother was later told to divorce the father or else her children would be removed from her. MCFD used these "divide and conquer" techniques to slowly move toward the final objective of removal of children. So even if they do not remove today, that does not mean that they are not working on it bit by bit, after they get peel off the protector layers (ie father and helpers)
And the methods above described by Anon at May 21, 2011 12:11 PM serve to further divide husbands and wives and couples, as they learn of these stories of false accusations and blame women in general. This feeds the Father's Rights groups, who in turn tend to generalize about women, further dividing men and women. What these groups don't realize is that the real problem isn't generally the opposite sex, but the government, and the peculiar and perverse ideology that drives certain government agencies.
ReplyDeleteOK so who is willing to sue Child ministries in BC and what lawyers have good track records of getting your kids back? Here's a bigger twist kids reside in US one parent also does and other parent is in BC while Abusive Grandmother has the kids in but a third location in the US...State will not do a thing till BC courts decide who can make the choices in first place and first removal was because a social worker said a new born baby could crawl over to a single piece of christmas tensil on the floor and choke on it.... Have any Ideas or people in BC Canada that can or are willing to help please contact me at darastrix00@yahoo.com as I am the father trying to get both his daughters out of a abusive household where all sides keep saying they ca not or will not do a thing about it because they do not have the authority to do so... Want to check the case out in BC has been on going since 1998 Kobelt one last name McFadden Mothers Last Name against the ministry third party McRoberts half sister also involved now 19yrs old..... Who do you go public with? Who do you get to review these cases as they did all they could to force us to make there choices and tell us we where worse for not doing as they told us...Metis Lawyer was also involved as I am a bit Metis so chldren would be also.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to say I got my boys back. They are adults now. No thier adoption was not in thier best interest they are tramatized and really struggling. I am still being denied visits My ex threated to kill me, if I bothered him and would cause our son harm. Child protection intake; child dose not need protection MCFD are scooping up kids it's all about the money not protecting them. I don't under stand why they are still in buisness ? The Minister Stephanie Cadeux ought to be arrested for abusing children and letting them die. As for the representative of children and Youth she tried f enough am reports we know child protection services are really bad just stop letting them get away with murder! These are beautiful innocent children! Parents ought to be compensated for thier brutal undeserving conduct. I'm still fighting and my boys and I will keep moving forward the Ministry of Children and Family Development you have been exposed. The Ministry will get thier karma is a bitch and so am I☺
ReplyDelete