Monday, August 15, 2011


The blog title seems to be an apparent leap in logic that parents of autistic children are making but it is entirely reasonable. If nine year old Ayn can be removed from her daddy whom she loves, other children who may wander from home or display bizarre behaviour in a public venue can similarly risk removal from their parental homes. That is what is concerning parents of autistic children and members of autism societies and support groups and research organizations.

Ayn’s case is typical of so many family situations in which disabled children have not been neglected or abused by their caregiving parents but after cursory investigation, government agencies have jumped to the default protection option – take the child away.

Derek calls his daughter Ayn an amazing work in progress, a young girl who can appreciate baking and music and photography. She is an affectionate child with her dad and here two brothers, one of whom is also autistic. She does communicate albeit with challenges. Her in-school experience has been burdened with lack of educational resources for a person with her condition. A house re-location placed her in a new school with activities that accommodate disabilities such as Ayn’s. While Ayn was adjusting to this new welcoming environment, she still became aggressive and lashed out and put fellow students at some risk. This led to isolation procedures and a safety plan concerning her.

Then in August of 2010 in the hopes that a new city might provide a new beginning for Ayn, Derek moved his family to a different home and city which introduced to Ayn a new school. In that school a small personal room was constructed within a classroom which provided separation from the school population. She still experienced days of severe agitation. This resulted in Ayn’s care team, of which an MCFD representative was a member, designed a four-tiered behavioural ‘safety plan.’ There were different levels of intervention that were applicable when Ayn was observed to be violent and perhaps prone to self-injury. An aspect of the intervention was a calm down area constructed within her little room that was dressed with gym mat padding to prevent her from hurting herself. She was given a blanket and music and a rocking chair with which to calm herself as part of this strategy but it proved to be ineffective. Her aggression did not subdue but escalated.

The care team began reviewing a possibility that Ayn’s aggressive outbursts may have a dual diagnosis but Derek rejected this proposition. Derek believed that the ‘safety plan’ had informed Ayn that she could manipulate the administrators. His contention was that since she did not behave this way at home, it was the school environment that provoked this behaviour, and the calming strategy was a contributing factor. So whatever progress was being made at home to modify Ayn’s behaviour through loving relationships was not consistent with the techniques employed at school.

The school did not agree with Derek.

Derek had some prior interaction with MCFD. The earliest occurred several years ago, involving his oldest son who is a neurotypical child, whereas Ayn and he middle brother are autistic. This boy lost his kitten and was given permission by Derek to look though the neighbourhood and cross certain streets. His son crossed one that had not been permitted and made a pay phone call to 911 to announce his lost cat. Two days later, CPS came to Derek’s door alleging that the boy had abused the emergency service system and this he was ill-supervised. Nothing more came of this but a couple of years later the same boy was playing in a local park but was unsupervised. Somehow CPS was notified and then demanded to know why Derek allowed this. Derek’s explanation was that he had two disabled children whose care he and to prioritize and he did not want to place his oldest normal child under virtual house arrest. The boy was then nine years of age and Derek was informed that the ‘community standard’ does not permit a young child to play unsupervised in the park. Whether Derek knowing what he now knows, would now reconsider his response if faced with the same issue is unknown, but his passion for civil rights at the time found expression by his assertion that the Charter of Rights surely supersedes the ‘community standard’ and the Charter allows people to freely move about. Derek wanted to voice record this interaction but the CPS representative refused and left. In that earlier altercation, CPS returned weeks later and demanded that he undergo a risk assessment which he did and he heard nothing more, and therefore assumed he had passed. This was the start of the adversarial relationship that has most recently culminated in the apprehension of his daughter Ayn.
Carrie Russo

You can read some extensive coverage of this story well written by San Pedro Special Education Examiner Carrie Russo, and published by on August 2-9, 2011
(all above links are now working)

Please contact Derek Hoare directly at 

Derek Hoare 904-HELP AYN 904-435-7296


  1. Child Welfare remove kids for the dumbest reasons.I have a friend and CAS were called on them by their 14 year old daughter's teacher because she came to school with messy hair(as she had slept in.) Others have been informed on because the child wasn't wearing a hat(occurs both in winter and summer) or was barefoot in summer,had a sunburn,have gotten lost, or had a speech impediment, etc. for the dumbest reasons imaginable! Parents have to be SO vigilant and careful nowadays(to the point of paranoia almost)and watch what you say and do in public, to shield their families from prying eyes that inform to the authorities and from nosey parker authorities that are quick to intrude upon families.

  2. When MCFD does a comprehensive risk assessment, this is a clue they are preparing for removal at that stage.

    Acquiring the CRA when it is competed is of the highest importance for parents, because this is where you get an understanding of the mindset of the social workers performing the so-called 'investigation' and a summary listing of negative information on record. This is like a trial run for removal planning.

    I have not yet seen a risk assessment that was done without parental input that wasn't written as an assassination of that parent's ability. If you think a report to court is bad, you should read through how social workers cobble together negative fragment from various sources to villify parents in CRAs.

    A CRA is often a preview of what a future report to court will look like.

    An early record of confrontation, such as offering to record a worker is simply the most dangerous thing than you can do with people who have the power to remove your children at will. The correct response is deference, and asking where 'community standards' can be found so the matter can be promptly corrected.

    Very few parents would know in advance that the second you get that call from a social worker, always have a hiden audio recorder with you at all times, for the rest of your life. I'm not kidding. A couple of years will go by, and MCFD will be back on your doorstep the next time your child calls 911 or a teacher phone to say little Johnny gave someone a finger.

    Smile and ask as many questions as possible. Don't forget that even at this stage, everything you say will be used against you in future CFCSA proceedings. If you have a recording of the interview and social workers deliberatly record inaccurate information, you then have the opportunity to correct this for the court record.

    That said, it is not difficult for them to write in a report (all in CAPITAL LETTERS, of course): 'Parent refuses to acknowledge culpibility in not supervising a child too young to be left alone because he states he is too busy caring for two other special-needs children at home and says he is overwhelmed when taking all children out at once.' 'Parent further demonstrated uncooperative behaviour and became defensive regarding his son placing a 911 call and declared his desire to record SW, who then informed him this was against MCFD policy due to privacy legislation.' 'Child in need of protection: YES' 'Resolution: offer support services' 'CRA to be produced'

    It is VERY interesting to hear of the 911 service notifying MCFD of a child calling this number, as they must have flagged a concern the child was too young to be left alone.

    This meant that in order to track down the parent, the operator would have had to obtain the name of the child, his age, address, phone number and any other identifying information. This must also mean a set of policies and protocols must exist within the 911 service to involve MCFD.

    I notice my daughter has several accidentally speed-dialed 911 calls made from her cell phone, with the service phoning back to see if there was an emergency. It is frightening to imagine that each such contact results in an intake report to MCFD.

  3. The suggestion that a parent must defer and not speak for his freedoms smacks strongly of power inequities. This is the sort of situation in which people like Rosa Parks found themselves in what became the American civil rights movement. Any group can only defer to the bully so long when the bully has legal power and protection. Once there is a face and a true life story, most human beings respond with compassion. Our western society has made many moral, racial, religious, ethical and political shifts using media. Media bytes are the weapons that level the playing fields. Guess why MCFD hates people threatens people who use media.
    Publicize. Publicize, publicize anywhere, everywhere!

  4. Ron I have a couple of responses.One on yesterdays responses and one on today's.
    First the cost of transcript. The cost of the 223 pages of transcript of Lawyer Finn Jensen's three days summary was about $700,00 and that was cheap because the first copy had already been made for the court. The Bayne case went on for 22 days, not counting all the hearings to discuss increased access. My estimate is that a full transcript would cost at least five thousand dollars. $5,000.00
    Second a reader suggests that when the MCF starts doing a risk assessment that they are getting ready to apprehend. The problem with that is that most of the staff have no idea how to do a risk assessment. For them a parental capacity assessment or a risk assessment means digging up all the dirt you can on a person to justify what you just did or to justify what you would like to do. If there is no evidence of risk, then they manufacture some as they did in the Bayne case. Even the judge had to scrape the bottom of the legal barrel to assess a minimal degree of risk.
    The truth is that the staff are not trained to have the knowledge and skills to do risk assessments. They do not have any understanding of the difference between normal and abnormal family life and child behaviour. They have poor interview and communication skills and no ability for critical thinking. Because they lack most of the basic skills the ministry uses a bureaucratic device to assess risk. They have the staff fill in a form called a risk assessment. It is a check list of certain areas of life with a rating scale. It is totally subjective and no facts are required to back up the opinions expressed. As in the Bayne case, the risk asssessment was a blatant attempt at character assassination all signed off at higher levels. So you cannot blame the hatchet man who filled it out.
    Moreover, the form is totally inappropriate to use as a risk assessment anyway. The form was designed in New York State for the purpose of people with addiction problems to do self assessments. Thus the subjective nature is much more acceptable. It is for people to make judgements on themselves. The MCF must have been desperate to adopt it and it has been heavily criticised. What they need to do is train social workers properly.

  5. That is a perfect association mentioning Rosa Parks and the power inequity between those who assert their righteousness and use their power to enforce their on anyone who does not agree with them.

    I like to think the tide is turning with respect to correcting this inequity of child protection when I see people like the Baynes standing up for their children, Derek Hoare fighting for his daughter Ayn, Magda, Sarah Ford fighting to have their infant children who were removed at birth, returned to them.

  6. Anon 7:17am - Under no circumstances did a SW attend a 14 year old's high school to interview her because the teacher said "the 14 year old's hair is messy." SW's can only respond to concerns as they pertain to section 13 of the CFCSA. You were not told all the pertinent info as to why the SW went to that school - guaranteed. Needless to say - IF the ONLY reason was messy hair, wouldn't it be the teacher's fault for considering that child abuse moreso than MCFD's requirement to respond to any report?

    Anon 8:11 - A child calls 911 and let me get this DON'T want RCMP or MCFD to respond? What of the child that actually needs help?

    911 can track down addresses of people with dropped cell phone calls. They can find the address of whatever phone calls them. 911 doesn't need to speak with the person on the other end to know what address the phone belongs to. If cell they can't track the location the phone was at when calling (that I am aware of) but merely the address the cell is attached to.

    You believe a report at MCFD is filed every time a child calls 911. Have you requested your own MCFD file as your belief re: this comes from your own daughters accidental 911 calls. If so, you have proof of a report always being filed for each instance. If you haven't, you may wish to gather such evidence before making the statements that you have.

  7. Hey Anonymous August 15, 2011 7:25 PM
    Do you have any children? Can I have your address? I'll call CAS and tell them you have serious attitude issues and I am sure this make you a bad parent. Then when they show up and display very poor behaviour and scare the crap out of you, you will be able to tell your story and no one will believe you except the people who have been there. But wait you must be a Social Wrecker yourself so no need right? You probably don't have any children either...and you probably have a whole lot of opinions about people who do.

    Please post this as anonyomous needs a bit of a wake up call.

    Thank you have a good day!!!!

  8. I am surmising that you Anon 8:45 AM are the same person 7:17 AM at the top or are 8:11 AM of this current chain whom Anon 7:25 PM was addressing. You took exception to the clarification the writer was seeking to bring. While I understand the angst from which you both write, the fear, the concern, it is important if you expect discerning readers to buy your premises, that you deal with credible facts. I don't believe there was a call for the slanderous response you have just given. But you made it and I printed it as you asked.

  9. I am the original 7:17 am anonymous and no, it wasn't me who posted the other post , it was just someone else who agrees with me that it is so easy to be reported to Child welfare and unless you have been thru it yourself or know someone who has you really have no idea how common and easy it is to be targeted by them.
    As for my friend, yes, the messy hair WAS the only issue why the teacher called CAS. My speculation is she thought the child was "neglected" even though this was the one and only time.People just need to really THINK and not jump to conclusions. There are many explanations for things; it's NOT automatically abuse or neglect. People need to see the whole story first before they go snitching to the authorities on mere suspicion.It is also true that many of these busybodies are NOT parents because if they were they would be understanding and not inform on people for such petty things.

  10. In that case the call to CAS was hasty and premature. That surprises me as a teacher response. One would expect more discernment and keener judgement.

  11. Not if Teachers, daycare workers and medical staff are told to err on the side of caution and report everything (especially since as professionals, they are legally bound to do so, at least in certain provinces), and then let the "experts" in child protection determine what is valid or not. At least that's what we were told in a course I attended on detecting child abuse being taught by a "child protection" worker and which was filled with a lot of daycare workers as students. The theory is that one incident might not be a concern, but if a "child protection" organization gets a lot of calls of a similar nature it might be a concern. Of course, it can cause headaches for the parent, since as each one is added, it becomes harder and harder for the parent to address them, even if they are all false positives...

  12. I'll add to 2:16's they are also to report any statements that parents say that are said even in joking that maybe against the rules of CPS. I heard one child care worker say to a father be careful I'd have to report you for saying that. Here was the statement this loving father said jokingly - I'm locking my girl in her room until she's 20 because I don't want her dating any of the kids I've seen in her school.
    So you even have to watch what you say even in grocery stores to your child. If they are pulling things off the shelf and you tell them you're going to spank them if they do it again and someone hears you and follows you out to your car and gets your license plate and calls it in. I’ve heard of it happening. It used to be the one who rocks the cradle rules the world, not any more big brother rules it.

  13. 7:25PM - I can absolutely guarantee you social workers will attend a school on the MOST TRIVIAL MATTERS imaginable, because me and my children have experienced it several times with MCFD in BC (I note CAS is in Ontario). I can certainly concur with 7:17PM on the trivial nature on which social workers will attend schools. Once they get it, they they start digging for dirt that will be less embarrassing to put in a report to court, then write in their reports THOSE issues were the reason for attendance, not "messy hair."

    The depth of deviousness of a typical child protection social worker cannot be understated from my experience. I'm relatively new to this, but dozens of parents I have talked to concur. Speaking with other advocates who have dealt with THOUSANDS of parents citing similar stories tells me that particular profession deserves very little respect from us, the unwashed public.

    When you have predatory social work such as we are experiencing now where there is little defence, it has to be expect the victims of their work have to band together and help each other. Circle the wagons. Expose predatory social work at every turn.

    Personal examples? A call from a teacher to MCFD in one instance was because my child arrived "sad." After the social worker arrived at school, the two of them extracted as much derogatory sounding information possible, threatened my children with removal and they told them my discipline methods were illegal (writing lines, apparently being one of them.)

    Teachers quizzed the kids regularly. An ear tug warranted a call to MCFD and a visit. So does a nose flick. A step on the toe. Placing a hand on the back of a neck becomes "choking." Grounding is mental abuse.

    An actual bruise, well, this warrants a 3-month response delay so workers arrive long after said bruise is long gone and the kids can't remember actual details. But then, the social worker portrays the child as having impeccable recall, and perhaps "remembering" a bit more. (Shades of "recovered memories.")

    What unscrupulous predatory social workers will do is allow intakes to accumulate, then the cherry pick and put these in a risk assessment. This is EXACTLY as Ray Ferris suggests.

    It is actually quit remarkable to have a social worker with more than three decades of experience tell it like it is, and then there are people who concur.

  14. I have regularly heard(thru friends, lawyers, family and homeschooling advocates, the news, etc.) that the worst Child Welfare dept's(more zealous,invasive, and intrusive,etc.)to watch out for are in BC, Ontario(mainly Ottawa and Waterloo although my friend is in Scarborough) Quebec and Newfoundland.

  15. Someone had mentioned that the risk assessment is a warning that they are going to remove the child. The risk assessment was the result of an altercation in 2008 or 2009 b/w Mr. Hoare and MCDF regarding the eldest child NOT Ayn. By the way Ayn's two eldest brothers, one autistic, are still in the home. Explain that please.

  16. Please read all the Articles regarding Ayn's removal before commenting on her situation. I read many inaccurate, unrelated responses. The articles are available at You may also subscribe at for instant updates. Thank you for your interest, and the stimulating, thought provoking discussion. Possibly MCDF was at the school to ensure Ayn was receiving her "accommodations" as Ayn is autistic.

  17. Ron --- I was referring to MCDF's presence at the school as part of the Care Team not their presence during the removal. I agree that Ayn should be at home, do not get me wrong, but there is such a thing as abuse and neglect. As the parent of an autistic child who has had her own encounter with people not understanding his behaviors are often the result of being on the spectrum, I was just pointing out that, in my opinion, parents need to "pick their battles" when taking on governmental agencies. The focus should not be how horrible MCDF is or has been but rather on the solutions to these problems such as better training of staff to recognize that these behaviors, such as wearing no shoes, wandering, etc. are not the result of neglect nor abuse but rather they are autistic traits, changing the process for an emergency order for removal of a child by insisting on more concrete evidence of the wrong doing, and having the agencies accountable to the public through public oversight of records with names being withheld from the reports for privacy. It is my opinion that the focus should be solutions, we already know where the problems lie. There are many such instance in many countries where these agencies have abused their power. Last note, I requested to be anonymous, if you do not honor such a status please remove it from your options.

  18. I agree with all that you have said in your most recent comment - I am on the same page. Further, I apologize for my careless compromise of your anonymity and have hereby erased my previous comment.

  19. Thank you. I would love to partake in this blog but can not compromise my anonymity due to my altercations with these agencies, and my involvement in protecting the rights of parents in democratic nations worldwide. May I ask what types of solutions do you propose? How do you think can we all join together to fight for our families in a manner that will not put the government on the defensive, which may cause retaliation?

  20. The concentration of this blog has for two years focused upon one family’s struggle to recover their children. The agency has been similarly exclusive, the Ministry of Children and Family Development in B.C. Only recently have I written some posts about Derek and Ayn. The blog purpose is placed to the right side. Solutions offered over the past two years in actual posts and comments by others and are too numerous to consolidate in one quick reply right now. If I have time I may gather them in one document. I want to give some thought to your last sentence but I require time. Thinking beyond our BC issues until now has been my necessary concentration. How do you react to the American website called

  21. Anon at August 18, 2011 10:59 AM -

    You indicate that you believe the solution to MCFD abuse of power lies, at least partly, in training. What MCFD has done to the Baynes and Derek Hoare and his daughter Ayn has nothing to do with training and everything to do with corrupt power. Until this Ministry is held accountable, and until this Ministry realizes that it can't just destroy families on a whim, no amount of training will change anything. Suggesting that the problem can be solved with training is not just naive, but dangerous. Please reconsider this line of thinking.

  22. Ron,
    I am anonymous 8:45 am August 17th, I made those comments at the anonymous person previous to my post wether right or wrong. My point is that most people have no idea just how many times these malicious calls are made on parents. Most people have no idea what a parent is subjected to when a call is made. At a hospital I heard a nurse tell another nurse " Call the baby snatchers on that woman that will fix her boat" They were discussing how much of a whinner this new mother was and how annoying she was. I swear this to be true. I heard the whole conversation and was sickened by it. People use the CAS as a weapon against parents, why you wonder, because they can and they know how bad the CAS's workers are especially in Kitchener. Lawyers know it, Judges know it, doctors know it nurses know it, teachers know it, nasty neighbours know it. People are afraid to speak out because they don't want to loose their children. It doesnt take much for a Child Protection worker to make it look like you are a bad parent...but as you well know it takes years and thousands of dollars to prove you are not a bad parent. As a result people turn a blind eye, out of protection for their own families. Can you blame them? I may have been harsh to the anonymous person commenting before me, but I wish the rest of the world would wake up and realize that the Child Protection Industry is worth billions of dollars and people are paying far to dearly for it. Yes there are some children who need protection, but their sure allot of parents who deserve protection from a society that needs to reined in. It is getting out of control, and peoples lives are being ruined for $$$$$ and job security. This is my opinion and it stems from all that I have seen. I know first hand what damage an unture anonymous call to the CAS can lead to. Innocent till proven guilty is not the forum in which family court works. I think we need to get back to basics, I believe it should start with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and go from there. Thank you for respecting my freedom of speech.

  23. The Child Protection industry is actually worth more than billions of dollars.

  24. Aug 20 9:25 PM
    What kind of statement is that?
    What are you talking about?
    Are you talking about budget? What? This is the type of baseless comment I come close to erasing.
    We all know people earn salaries as SWs and lawyers and foster parents. What is your statement actually saying?

  25. Regarding the money made and spent in the child protection business, just in the pharmaceutical aspect of CPS, and just in the USA alone, the sums of money are in the hundreds of millions, at the very least:

    According to a number of foster care experts who spoke with Politics Daily, children in foster care, who are typically concurrently enrolled in Medicaid, are three or four more times as likely to be on psychotropic medications than other children on Medicaid. Alarmingly, many of these drugs are medically prohibited for minors and dangerous to the children taking them. Often young patients under state supervision are also prescribed three or four high-risk drugs at a time — all paid for by Medicaid.

    State foster care programs and child protective services have had mixed success addressing the pervasiveness of dosing their clients with prescription psychotropic drugs. Using federal Medicaid money to purchase dangerous prohibited prescriptions for children, which cost the government up to $600 per dose, is technically a violation of the law.

    Now, the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, chaired by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), has asked the Government Accountability Office to look into the drugging of foster care children. The investigators will attempt to account for estimates in the hundreds of millions of dollars of possible fraud arising from prescriptions for drugs explicitly barred from Medicaid coverage. The GAO is collecting data from Oregon, Massachusetts, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota and Texas, to search for patterns of abuse. This effort marks the first time suspicion of Medicaid fraud related to psychotropic drugs has been examined at the federal level. According to Senate staffers working on the investigation, the committee will likely hold hearings on the matter later this year.

    Psychotropic medications act on the central nervous system and alter brain function, mood and consciousness. The GAO investigation is chiefly focused on anti-depressants, widely used in foster care in dangerous combinations, and for so-called “off-label” uses to treat symptoms for which they have not been medically approved. Anti-psychotic medications have been a factor in a number of children’s deaths.

    Statistics on psychotropic drugs in foster care have until now come out in scattered reports, mostly from investigations of foster care failures by individual states. For example, in 2003 a Florida Statewide Advocacy Council study found that 55 percent of Florida’s foster children were being administered psychotropic medications. Forty percent of them had no record of a psychiatric evaluation. Another Florida report also indicated anti-psychotic medication use increased an astonishing 528 percent from 2000 to 2005.


    And we know that this is occuring right here in beautiful BC, because Derek Hoare's daughter, Ayn, who was taken for no good reason by MCFD, was drugged with 3 (or was it four) anti-psychotic drugs, none of which she needed, and all of which are harmful to her. That sad, lost little face of Ayn that we can now all see on this blog and elsewhere, is just another casualty in the CPS business. She's making money for MCFD, and the therapists, doctors, pharmaceutical industry, lawyers, etc., etc., etc.

    It's not hard to imagine this CPS business being a billion - or perhaps a trillion - dollar business. But even if it was only the cost of one little girl named Ayn, it would be too high a price to pay.


I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise