I will not pointlessly denounce all child protection services. I know CP social workers who are trustworthy, sensitive, compassionate and diligent. I know that some family situations that are deplorably unsafe places for children. So, I won’t unduly complain that every CP action is maliciously invasive.
But here’s the thing.
There are cases like Ayn’s where, even the MCFD’s own files cannot possibly justify withholding the child from parents. The seizure and custody of the child is so inherently mistaken and illegal in the moral sense if not judicial, that it can be called iniquitous. And I want to blow the lid off when this happens. I, we, should shop around for every columnist and journalist who will write about it, broadcast it and embarrass the perpetrators of this scandalous crap.
One thing more. I cannot get a listening ear or an audience if I am perceived to be chronically critical, lacking case specifics and unambiguous proofs. It is crucial to be honest and objective while being passionate.
Here now follows an exchange between advocates, Ray Ferris and Mea Jones, each of whom takes a different approach to their criticism of the Ministry of Children. These are taken from the Facebook page known as ‘Help Bring Little Autistic Girl back to her Daddy.’
Ray Ferris Facebook; I am a little disappointed that some of your readers can decry intolerance in others at the same time as being completely intolerant themselves. So Richard Watts is mistaken about Doug Christie. This does not mean that he cannot be right about something completely different. His opinion of Doug Christie does not mean that he is wrong if he praises some foster and adoption parents, or if he insists that the world is not flat. One of the things that Doug did say was that he could accept those mistaken beliefs of someone like Zundel or Keegstra, as being their genuine belief, if they sincerely believed it. That is not to say that the beliefs were validated, but that they were sincerely mistaken. After all if we are not to accept the validity of sincerely held beliefs, you could wipe out most religion. A Christian usually accepts the virgin birth as a fact. To an atheist she could just be a girl who unwisely got pregnant and then claimed it was the almighty who lifted her nightie. I have said many times before that children come into care for many different reasons. Many are neglected, abused and abandoned and it is only some very wonderful foster homes that give them a chance in life. Just look at two totally opposite cases. Would Mea Jones have left Matthew Vaudreuil with his mother? Would Mea have left him to be abused and neglected for seven years until she killed him? With the Baynes the situation was different. The Baynes were loving and careful parents whose child got an accidental injury. A doctor gave a sincere, but mistaken opinion that the injury was deliberate. The social workers and particularly the director behaved abominably when they found that the evidence was unreliable and you all know the tragic story. Please accept Mea that there is just a possibility that some adoption and foster homes are fine people who are guilty of nothing more than loving children.
Mea Jones a real child protector, as opposed to the fakes at MCFD
Mea Jones Richard Watts, the same guy who wrote the article about Doug Christie, in which it was implied that Doug - in private - held the same views as his clients, has written extremely flattering articles which paint adopters and foster "parents" as saints. What a coincidence, hey?
Just Google these search terms and you'll see the pro-MCFD articles written by Richard Watts: Richard watts times colonist mcfd
Mea Jones Ray I cannot accept that some foster homes are fine because there is no transparency and accountability whatsoever (and there isn't), I have no way of knowing if Angela Hatch is the saint she is made out to be, or someone who just likes making money by warehousing as many as four babies at a time, and going to Hawaii to teach other foster "parents" on the taxpayer's dime. The fact that we can even have ONE case like Derek's or the Bayne's (and there are far, far more than these victims) proves to me that the corruption is widespread and goes from top to bottom, and devastating to families and society and the justice system.
It just so happens these very flattering stories by Richard Watts are written shortly before the fiscal year end for MCFD, another thing I find worth noting, if not suspicious.
But what really bothers me is how the media continually ignores the horrific injustices to families and children, yet has the time and space to glorify foster "parents" and adopters. This, as far as I am concerned, contributes to the already widespread prejudice against parents (or as Angela Hatch refers to them "biological homes"). And this widespread prejudice is what allows children like Ayn and the Bayne's children to be subjected to abuse, horrible abuse (because the apprehension of a child IS child abuse, as is the continued separation from their parents).
So, in essence, people like Richard Watts may be seen to be contributing to child abuse, by refusing to expose cases like the Baynes and Ayn Van Dyk, yet simultaneously painting MCFD as a cash-strapped Ministry with people with big hearts trying to do such a hard job.
One last point: if a person is going to take on such an incredibly important role of being a foster "parent" or adopting a child, they should do their research. Anyone who researches adoption and CPS cannot fail to discover - as some prospective adopters have pointed out - that the provenance of their future adoptive children is questionable, and common decency prevents them from taking children who may have been stolen.
As long as there is one brutally unjust case like Ayn Van Dyk's, I refuse to blindly accept that their foster "parents" are the saints some reporter paints them out to be. Thursday at 8:10pm · Like
Mea Jones And it's true, I am completely intolerant of those who refuse to expose the child abuse perpetrated by MCFD. Thursday at 8:11pm · Like
And after seeing so many cases around the world where CPS somehow neglects to do anything about the Baby P's and other obviously abused children (yet takes children from good, loving parents like Derek, Amie and the Baynes), I've come to the conclusion they leave them in these situations precisely because something may happen, because if it does, their power is always increased.
For anyone who thinks CPS couldn't possibly be so evil, ask yourself what kind of person and organization could do what they did to Ayn, who spent days holding her dad's photo to her chest crying, and got shoved in a basement, drugged up, all alone, for over 1.5 years? Or how about after Zabeth gave birth and they swooped in and took her little premature baby away in their MCFD apprehension-mobile, and promptly got in an accident (real good protecting, there, MCFD).
These children in foster "care" are sad, lonely, confused, angry, heartbroken and desperate. They get drugged with powerful, harmful drugs in order to make MCFD and foster "parents" lives easier.
We don't need to hear about anymore MCFD saints. The public is duped enough already. But I guess when you are continually wanting to commit crimes of this magnitude you have to keep up the propaganda, 24/7.
Mea Jones People who run foster housing in the past, pre-Internet, can be excused. Many of them did it for all the right reasons, and I have no doubt whatever that the children they got were sad and damaged, as the act of apprehension and the separation from parents will damage anyone.
But we are living in a different era, one where it would be impossible to not discover that CPS is corrupt and totalitarian in nature.
Mea Jones But what bothers me is how the media continues to publish stories glorifying people like Angela Hatch, yet it will not expose the massive abuse perpetrated by MCFD. And what brought this story, and the other story Richard Watts did glorifying adoption, to his attention? Is it just a coincidence that he has written at least two massively supportive-for-MCFD articles in the last two months?
Why, exactly, is Richard Watts writing these highly flattering articles that greatly enhance the image of MCFD?
And is it possible he is related in some way to the Director of Practice for MCFD, Robert Watts? Or is Richard Watts just someone who really likes to promote foster "care" and adoption?
Mea Jones Yes but keep in mind that you only get CPS's version of every bruise etc. And they probably don't tell anyone if the bruises aren't from the parents but rather from the previous foster house.
Unless you actually see a parent inflicting burns or broken bones, it's not really fair or accurate (especially given CPS's propensity to mislead) to conclude it was the parents.
I can definitely understand the desire to want to save children from the heartache and damage of the system and want to take them in because you know they will be loved and cared for by you.
But I couldn't do it myself because for me it would be aiding and abetting people and an organization that I deem corrupt, evil and guilty of child abuse and kidnapping, and one which I am philosophically opposed to because of the inherent nature of it, that gives rise to child abuse, tyranny and injustice. But I can definitely sympathize with anyone who truly wants to save children from the system itself by providing what they know would be a far better home than most these foster children would end up in.
Mea Jones How many stories of CPS not abusing children who really are being abused (by parents or others), along with stories like Ayn's, before we see that CPS is not what it pretends to be.
If the Mafia or some such criminal organization was kidnapping children
Mea Jones Kidnapping children from good parents like the Baynes and Derek, and stealing our money to fund their kidnapping sprees, yet also (supposedly) doing some good, would we tolerate it? So why should we tolerate CPS, who do exactly the same a gang of criminals do?
If we want to save children, we should start by holding one of the biggest - if not the biggest - child abusers accountable: CPS.
This is a system that is destroying - worldwide - hundreds of thousands of families, consigning children to a nightmare of dazed drugged up loneliness ("foster care"), where all to often they are abused and killed (and abused and killed much more often than by their "biological"parents).
All our inquiries and reports and reforms do is increase their power. Even their so-called critics (e .g., Turpel-Lafond) increase their power.
Yet we still hang on to the delusion that CPS saves children. Even the cost to the justice system and the corruption that CPS generates would justify shutting them down.
Real child abuse - and I don't mean the horribly subjective definition currently unconstitutionally (I would say) legislated - is a crime. Use the police, not social workers who WILL find what they are obsessively looking for ("abuse").
If we got rid of CPS, we'd save hundreds of thousands of children from Ayn's fate, we save billions of taxpayer dollars, we save countless children's lives, crime from children turned monsters in foster "care" would drop, suicides from these children and their parents (and there are a lot of these suicides) would drop, and ground zero for the most abusive, corrupt, and tyrannical form of state power would be wiped out, thus purifying to a great extent politics, the justice system and society.
As long as we continue to be deluded, and believe CPS will save us and our children, our society and our children, will sink lower and lower. If we don't stop CPS soon, they will be newborn babies from breastfeeding moms straight from the hospital without a warrant or any reason.
Oh wait, they already do that, don't they?
All in the best interests of the child.
Ray Ferris Papa InBC is quite right. We have got off the track of Doug Christie and maybe we should open up a new topic and see if we can get more input from foster parents.
A word to the wise Mea. Believe me when I say I fully share your outrage at the injustices done to children and parents like Bayne and Ayn. Also I think that they are not exceptional. It is not advisable to become so outraged that one closes ones mind to facts. If you do that, you become no better than Richard Watts. From my advocacy experience I have found that the parent was in the right two times out of three. In one out of three the parent was a danger to the children and the social workers were doing a high quality job. You could deal with one office of high standards and the next one was full of blundering incompetent people. Incompetent people are usually driven by anxiety and thus they cannot make good decisions. I would say that the director in the Bayne case had a severe anxiety disorder. A minister told me that 30% of cases are over-investigated and 30% under-investigated. In other words his staff get it wrong 60% of the time! One will never have a perfect system, but one could at least aim to get it right 80% or 90% of the time.
Mea, if you shut your mind to the input of other people and take extreme positions you will lose your credibility and people will stop listening to you. I think we need your commitment and passion in the struggle, but we also need your credibility. One more comment if I may. I come from a background of having admitted over a thousand children into care and having enabled double that number to stay home. In my career most children came into care because their parents did not want them. Of course that meant that I got to know dozens foster parents. Most of them were quite frankly simply awesome. Wonderful people who left me with great memories. One point is important. When children are returned, it certainly does not mean that there was no need to remove them in the first place. Addictions to alcohol and other drugs are probably a factor in most protection cases. Sometimes losing children is the motivator for the alcoholic parent to admit the problem and to get into rehab. When they do this they can get back the kids. In many other cases the parent is temporarily unable to cope. Family breakdown, mental illness and so on. It later becomes appropriate to return the children. If you want a total picture, read my book. Thank you Ron for your excellent forum and all you folks do keep writing
Mea Jones Ray, I am not so outraged I have closed my mind to the facts. The problem is, I see too many facts, and they all support the idea that CPS - everywhere in the world has far too much power, and is abusing it.
There are basically two kinds of thinking when it comes to child protection: a Libertarian stance, and everyone else. I am probably in the former category, as I believe Doug Christie probably would have been, as he was a Libertarian thinker. People, many people, find this kind of thinking objectionable, but if we look all over the world it's fairly clear that the government does not protect people, and greatly harms them.
I disagree that a child and a family should suffer the enormous trauma and injustice because the government or a social worker decides the parent is not up to whatever arbitrary standard there is at any given time or CPS office. There is no parent in the world who couldn't have their child taken if under attack by a social worker who is prepared to abuse their power and a judge stupid and / or corrupt enough to uphold that power. 17 hours ago via mobile · Edited · Like
Mea Jones Doug Christie, a "very caring Libertarian:". I think this thread is a fitting tribute to a man who spent his life defending free speech, and that there is no need to start a new thread, as the struggle for freedom of speech (which will destroy CPS corr..
Ray Ferris Facebook Well Mea; I don’t think that you have really understood a word that I have said, so I will not address the topic any more. 16 hours ago via · Like · 1
Mea Jones that sounds like censorship to me, Ray:)