Monday, April 9, 2012


Have you asked or answered this question? Have you considered it?

I assume that I am writing to an audience of readers who adamantly concur that children must be protected at all costs from exploitation which may involve such things as child prostitution, child trafficking, child pornography, violence against children and poverty.

We have come to expect that our elected government legislators and parliamentarians will take a responsible role to provide such protection. That involves the articulation of child human rights, the establishment of standards for care of children, laws that address violations of the child’s right to protection, and provisions to meet children’s basic human needs.

I am writing in Canada to Canadians concerning a subject about which our knowledge is incomplete and narrowly focused. Throughout the world in thirty countries armed conflicts involve 300,000 child soldiers. (Child Protection: A Unicef Guide to Parliamentarians 2004)

The same information resource cites worldwide figures of one million children live in detention due to conflict with the law; 13 million orphans due to AIDS; 1.5 million children in public care; 250 million in child labour often in hazardous conditions. It is estimated that 1.2 million children are trafficked annually. What must the estimate now be when in 1995 1 million children were involved in commercial sex trade? Forty million children under 15 years suffer from abuse and neglect. 100-130 million women and girls primarily in Africa have undergone a form of genital mutilation.

With the enormity of such concerns in mind, does it make any sense whatsoever for a Ministry of Children in British Columbia to respond to a call for attention from someone with regard to Ayn Van Dyk, autistic daughter of Amie Van Dyk and Derek Hoare, by removing this child from the custodial and loving care of parents within a relationship where there is no allegation of evidence of abuse or neglect? No, it does not make sense. In this case, there is merely a record of a child with autism who evidencing typical spectrum manifestations of severe autism is a challenge to manage and specially when she is in a school environment among non autistic children. There is also consistent indication that Derek and Amie are able to manage her by conversation and reliable attention and compassion. Now for many months Ayn has been removed from this home environment without any explanation which she can possibly comprehend, placed first in a sterile setting, behaviourally inhibited with drugs and then in what must be have been perceived by her as the peculiar home care of strangers/foster parents whom gradually she comes to identify as her care-givers.  

This child did not require intervention and protection. The thousands of dollars that have already been directed to this nine month tragedy could have and should have been applied to her care in her home with her own family around her. I don’t want to hear any more cases like this one. I want to learn of cases that exhibit that the Ministry of Children develops and employs directors, administrators and social workers who understand of what child protection truly consists?


  1. While we lament what has happened, and is happening, in BC this is not just a local problem. Children Protection abuses are occurring around the world, for example in Britain we read this on Peter Hitchen's blog:
    "My blood ran cold at the story of a psychiatrist who is alleged to have labelled parents with mental ‘disorders’ so that their children were snatched away from them. One has been exposed, and thank heaven for that. But how many others continue undisturbed?"

    Something (evil) is definitely going on regarding so-called 'Children Protection' services.

  2. For full details regarding the British psychiatrist see:

  3. Another similar case in Ontario where the now-shamed pathologist Dr. Charles Smith did autopsies on several dead babies and children and wrongly said the cause of death was due to their parents,and the authorities seized their other kids and they were jailed for YRS, for crimes they never committed, and now, YRS later, the truth is coming out about his false findings,and they are being exonerated...but they have STILL lost their children, their families,and their lives; nothing can ever make up for it!

  4. Just a point of clarification.
    You state that children should be protected from poverty.
    I would hope that poverty would not be used as an excuse to seize children from loving parents (although I am sure it happens and justified under the category of neglect).
    I would hope that governments would have the compassion instead to assist any families identified, with exiting the poverty trap, so that the children can stay in their family unit.
    This is where change needs to happen. We need government to exit from their silos and turf wars and instead share and allocate resources when a need has been identified. So give the child protection worker the ability to authorize an increase in a families welfare checks, and provide assistance with budgeting if required. Right now the only tool it seems they have is to seize first, then fit the facts to justify the case after.
    Similar in Derek's case, would it not have been cheaper, easier if the child protection workers could have approved assistance funding/help at home and at school over and above what they currently got if they thought current funding was insufficient and thought it would help. Right now, I don't think they even considered it as an option since that would mean accessing programs that are another ministry's responsibility. I am sure their current solution has a greater cost, both financially and emotionally for all impacted.

    1. Anon 9:12 PM Apr 10
      You are correct of course that poverty should never be a satisfactory reason for removing a child. That is, unless caregivers are willfully lazy and therefore destitute and grants of money would be consumed on selfish expenditures. It would be so much more humane and compassionate if government employees had visionary standards for building people, training, teaching, inspiring, tangibly assisting, feeding and nurturing. Wouldn't that be a fulfilling social work career?

  5. Ron,thank you for this eye-opener. Straight from your computer to God's ears. This child-protective industry has degenerated the whole child protection idea in the name of corporate profits and "job creation" for indoctrinated "social workers" at a huge monetary and moral cost to the tax paying population. It's a new global tool of enslaving otherwise free people.


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