This anonymous comment was written this morning in response to a challenge issued to another commenter named CW with regard to a comment under the Part 211 entry of June 7, 2010 1:58 PM. It is assumed that CW is a social worker presently employed somewhere in the MCFD system. It revisits the subject of MCFD Launched Surveillance of Parents. Anonymous wrote this:
“CW, I have given you almost two months to seek confirmation from your superior whether MCFD mounts surveillance on parents under scrutiny. You refused and alleged that you can only speak for the Fraser Valley Region (see your posting on June 16, 2010 in Part 222), hence setting up a stage for your sweet double talk once I prove my case.
I have accepted your unilaterally imposed rules of engagement like not relying on PAPA’s surveillance page and information or video from outside British Columbia. Since you refused to provide the confirmation I seek, I will not provide the evidence to prove my case. You are quite right that I have evidence, but I am not itchy. Rest assured that evidence against such intrusive and other hideous activities will be made public in a platform that your Ministry will find much harder to deal with at a time of my choice.
You tactfully raised the following issues that render MCFD mounted surveillance on oppressed parents seemingly impossible:
1. after hours support services may be the province-wide Children's Helpline (your comment sent on June 7, 2010 1:58 PM in June 6, 2010 Part 211);
2. there is no budget in conducting surveillance (same as above);
3. Mr. Ray Ferris stated clearly that MCFD does not use "spies" (your comment sent on June 7, 2010 10:52 PM in June 6, 2010 Part 211)
For the benefit of scrutinized families and the advance of knowledge on MCFD activities, I affirm that MCFD does mount surveillance. They do not put up surveillance in every case and only do this if there is incriminating evidence to gain. For instance, surveillance is often mounted when there is a supervision order prohibiting unauthorized contact of one parent with children who must leave his/her family home to exchange for return of children under the custody of the other parent. If there is no surveillance mounted as CW alleged, then MCFD is not doing its to protect children by not policing the supervision order. Be at ease, damage control. In fact, they often send their undercover agents to stalk parents and stake out residence in the aforesaid scenario.
Although I am not going to provide tangible evidence, I will respond to the above allegations that CW had shrewdly alleged to mislead people:
1. After hours support service constituted 45.7% of total child removal costs, which amounts to $6,917,931 in 2007/08 (data source: Freedom of Information application). Is it likely that a 24-hour phone line cost almost $7 millions per year to run? No. After hour “service” mainly comprises of MCFD agents who remove children and respond to “child protection” calls after hours. I have seen them on fishing expedition outside family homes hunting for reasons to re-remove children even after midnight.
2. It is true that there is no account in MCFD’s budget to support surveillance activity. If you read their budget carefully, there is no account for their legal expenses as well. MCFD lawyers do not provide pro bono services. Likewise, no surveillance budget does not mean that they don’t mount surveillance. MCFD’s legal expenses are in the Attorney General’s budget. As for surveillance, I would direct readers to read the Consolidated Revenue Fund Extracts (Unaudited).
Starting from page 141 of this 402-page document, there are many individuals and number companies received over $25,000 from MCFD for unspecified reasons. Like foster parents, some of these surveillance agents may not be government employees and are third parties hired by CP SW. One of the duties of SW is to authorize expenditures for support services (read MCFD SW job description page 1 of job store # 174 posted in June 2010). Be mindful that payment recipients receiving less than $25,000 in a fiscal year are not listed in this document. God knows which and how many of these recipients provide surveillance service.
3. I do not recognize that Mr. Ray Ferris, an ex-service provider, is authoritative. Nor do I believe that his solutions will solve problems created by state-sponsored child removal. Although I appreciate his effort to unveil the corruption by writing extensively on “child protection” issues, he has told me nothing new so far. Mr. Ferris can speak critically now because he had retired. If he did this while he was still employed, he would have been fired. CW is banking on the trust that many bloggers have on Mr. Ferris. His disbelief on the surveillance issue does not mean that it does not exist.
In today’s blog,* Mr. Ferris suggested that abuse will continue if social work professors, B.C. Association of Social Workers and MLA don’t speak up. MCFD’s SW need not to register with the British Columbia College of Social Workers (Mr. Ferris erred on the name of the College). What does this has to do with the College? I guarantee that this sort of abuse will continue if government still retains the power to remove children from parents. (*A Ferris post appeared briefly today. Recovery later).
These allegations even fool oppressed parents who have not experienced MCFD mounted surveillance. This ministry can compel teens to do penile sex tests and kept it well hidden for decades. What else they are not capable of doing?
PS: Regarding your remark “teachers are not MCFD watchdogs”. Indeed, every person in the province is obliged by law to be MCFD watchdog and the entire province is their hunting ground. Listing teachers only as MCFD watchdog understates the witch hunt network."
