Wednesday, July 31, 2013


Here is a media information sheet prepared by People Assisting Parents Association, or PAPA
It was specifically directed to media in view of a protest being held in Kamloops, B.C. by proponents of change to Child Protection services in B.C. and elsewhere in Canada. The specific subject is a woman named Velvet Martin, a significant voice for change.

Date: Thu, July 25, 2013 10:30 AM

I'm glad you have offered to do an interview covering this event.
The protest is a bit last minute and as such may not get a huge turnout, but regardless, the issues are important, but largely unknown by the general public.

Velvet Martin would be one of the "rock stars" of proponents of improving the state of families that have been targeted by child protection systems. Velvet was able to single handedly get "Samantha’s Law" passed in Alberta the name of her daughter who she was obligated to "sign over" to the Province's child protection system just to receive the care the government refused to provide if she did not do so. Other Provinces and U.S. States continue to contact her to find out how she managed that feat, because they also want similar legislation.

The child suffered immense injuries and neglect while in care, which was hidden by the Province from her mom until after her death. A 8-page inquiring into the little girls' death revealed huge neglect on part of the system charged to properly care for the child, but did not.

Some materials you can use for research can be found on the website, the YouTube channels papacoq and papawiki, and the face book page, Papa InBC.

MCFD is a 1.35 billion dollar Ministry that employs 2611 social workers and houses approximately 8,000 to 9,000 children in 3,300 foster homes across the Province. It costs taxpayers approximately $60,000 to $90,000 yearly to keep a child in care per year. The target families might be lucky to make half that per year.

The number of children in care remains relatively constant, because as 3,000 to 3,500 children age out of the system, they are "replaced" by a similar number of removals. The median age range of removed children is about 5.5 years old. Very few children in proportion of the whole are adopted. 50% of the children in care are aboriginal, yet make up 5% of the population. A study of the U.S. prison population states that 70% of inmates came from foster care.

Child removal is a "business" with the objective of consuming the maximum amount of taxpayer dollars per child as possible.

EVERY child is removed on an "emergency" basis, without a warrant. 95% of removed children are confirmed by the court as "legal" removals. The toll on low income families is immense, as all child tax credits and housing allowance based on having children in their care are immediately cut off.

Children may get to see their parents under supervised conditions at a facility for about an hour or two per visit, once or twice a week.
The magnitude of the trauma endured by the removed children and parents is immense.

From the Ministry's standpoint, they are "relieving" parents of their "financial burden" of raising their own children, and foster parents are paid handsomely a minimum of $900 per child, up to $3,000 for "special needs" children. This is tax free, monthly respite, free daycare, free babysitters, free medical and dental, two-weeks holiday, sometimes free nanny's are the perks for these homeowners, who also often have full time jobs.

Approximately 80% of the children removed from families are returned on "Supervision Orders" by agreement or through court decision. However, the average duration of this separation is about a year, because that is how long the various court dates for each of the steps takes to acquire. Therefore, the remedial services responsible for the "corrective" action " COULD have been supplied to families while they were intact, but the fact is such services are almost never supplied unless a removal occurs. The government funding does not kick in until this happens.

The Provincial politicians are loathe to do anything for fear of being portrayed as being against child protection. The clear benefit of child removal from a strictly financial standpoint is that several million dollars of federal funds flow into the Province for each removed child. More funding is provided for aboriginal child removals. This boils down to very little motivation to see the child protection industry as a problem.

Recently there was a 92-day trial that MCFD lost. This cost taxpayers millions of dollars to battle. The third-party law firms that handle cases on behalf of MCFD rake in millions of dollars. The legal aid system also receives tax dollars to defend parents, but are significantly outgunned, so not too many parents win.

Long trials and wait times are more the norm than the exception.
If you look at, a blog run by a retired Minister, he has written about the Bayne family of four, who dealt with MCFD for five years before getting their children back.

A currently active case he is writing about, little Autistic girl Ayn Van Dyke from Abbotsford BC, who was removed from her dad over two years ago to "lighten his load" leaving behind two other children. MCFD avoided a trial and is currently, very slowly, transitioning the child back to the home of the parents. Neither have been charged with any crime, and not accused of any neglect or harm to their child.

Thanks for reading.

People Assisting Parents Association
Facebook: Papa InBC
Youtube: papacoq, papawiki

Other reference sites:

Velvet Martin:
Velvet Martin Jan31/13 MCFD Rally Vancouver:
Justice for Samantha Martin:
Ron Unruh:
MCFD Protest Vancouver Aug6/12 with Velvet Martin:
Canada Court Watch:
Ayn Van Dyke:
EBMSI Conference:
Zabeth Bayne:
(Kamloops) MCFD Unjustified:
Colleen Deroache Advocate:
Salmon Arm Rhonda Bailey abusive social worker:

child protection social worker abuse; strive to protect the best interests of children by preserving their families and restoring healthy parenting ability; safeguard the rights and dignity of parents in child protection activities

No comments:

Post a Comment

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