Search This Blog

Search This Blog

Search This Blog


Google+ Followers

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Inquiry and some articles from 2003...

Although, in my opinion, an inquest is not very beneficial, I think that we should write to Dr. Jim Cairns and Dr. Barry McLellan urging them to call one immediately following the sentencing of bottineau and kidman.

If nothing else, the investigation may answer a lot of questions we have about why / how the CCAS failed Jeffrey and it would definitely publicly tarnish the organizations name.

26 Grenville Street
Toronto, ON M7A 2G9

I also found two articles from 2003 that are very interesting. I have highlighted the key points:


Monday, March 24, 2003

The Catholic Childrens Aid Society is taking a "rigourous" stance in checking the backgrounds of aspiring caregivers following the death of an emaciated five-year-old Toronto boy.
Jeffrey Baldwin weighed just 19 pounds when he was rushed from his Woodfield Rd. home, where he lived with his grandparents, to the Hospital for Sick Children last November. The boy, who was allegedly kept locked in a room, was pronounced dead shortly after arrival, suffering from pneumonia.

The CCAS didn't oppose or approve a custody application for Jeffrey by his grandparents.
The couple are now accused of first-degree murder and forcible confinement. They're to appear in court Wednesday for a bail hearing.

Society spokesman Fernando Saldanha said the society regrets not checking its files, which showed that both grandparents had criminal records involving child abuse. Jeffrey's grandmom was sentenced to a year's probation in 1970 after her daughter died of pneumonia. His step-grandfather was convicted in 1978 for the assaults of two of his wife's children.
"If the records had been properly checked by the workers involved at the time, then the situation would have been very different."

A Toronto Sun story Thursday said the society allowed the children to stay with their grandmother despite the fact the society's own records showed she had a prior conviction of child assault. Saldanha said the society actually played "no role" in the granting of the children to the grandparents.

Saldanha said procedures are "much more rigourous in terms of doing a thorough check of all of the names of individuals coming forward ..."


Tuesday, March 25, 2003

Toronto homicide detectives are investigating the Catholic Children's Aid Society and an unspecified number of case workers to determine if there was any criminal negligence in the death of Jeffrey Baldwin.

The emaciated 5-year-old boy weighed 19 pounds when he died last Nov. 30. An autopsy showed Jeffrey died of pneumonia as a result of the debilitating state of his body.
The lad allegedly lived as a virtual prisoner in a room he shared with his 6-year-old sister. Sources described Jeffrey's body as having sunken eyes and cheeks, loose skin about the buttocks, sores on the buttocks and penis, and a distended belly. His legs and arms were described as sticks.

Two other siblings also lived in the Woodfield Rd. home, in the Gerrard St.-Coxwell Ave. area.
Det.-Sgt. Mike Davis wants to know why the agency had never checked the grandparents' files during any of three separate applications the couple made for the children between 1997 and 2000.

The grandparents' files contained records of previous incidents. The grandmother was sentenced to a year probation after tiny fractures were found in the body of her five-month-old child, who died of pneumonia in 1970. The grandfather was convicted in 1978 of beating two of his wife's other children.

Elva Bottineau, 52, and Norman Kidman, 51, are charged with first-degree murder and forcible confinement, and are to appear in court on Wednesday for a bail hearing.

"I'm looking at the agency and its workers with the possibility of criminal wrongdoing, vis a vis, criminal negligence causing the death of Jeffrey Baldwin, and criminal negligence causing bodily harm involving the other children," Davis said.

"They know it," he said, but added he's not certain if the agency realized he planned a criminal investigation rather than just gathering information for a possible inquest.
The agency and its staff are "not responsible" for the death, Davis said. "It's a parallel investigation. It's a different issue."

Jeffrey was awarded to his grandmom and step-granddad along with a sister in 1998.
The agency had neither approved nor opposed the grandparents' private applications for custody of the children, CCAS spokesman Fernando Saldanha said. But he said the society should have had a role in the grandparents' applications. He said the agency concentrated on the childrens' parents and the grandparents were not under scrutiny.


So what happened?? Dt. Davis is now retired, so I don't know how to get a hold of him.
He testified at the trial because he interviewed james mills initially.

I would really like to know what the result of his investigation was, so if anyone knows how he may be contacted, please let me know.
Thank you.


Lisa Burns said...

Amanda call 55 division where he retired from it's 416 808 5500. Just ask if you can leave a message for him. Or ask who is in charge of his case loads.

Lisa Burns said...

Amanda call 55 division where he retired from it's 416 808 5500. Just ask if you can leave a message for him. Or ask who is in charge of his case loads.

Anonymous said...

Jeffrey labelled `bad,' trial told
Sister told of horrific abuse
`Bad things happened in tub'

Toronto Star, NICK PRON, COURTS BUREAU, Nov. 2, 2005.

The revenge the young girl wanted was clear — her grandparents should be jailed "forever" and get roughed up in prison for killing her younger brother, 5-year-old Jeffrey Baldwin.

And, as a court also heard yesterday, the 8-year-old child said she never wanted to see her mother and father again "because they let it happen."

Eight months after Jeffrey's death on Nov. 30, 2002, the anger that had been bottled up inside the girl boiled over one day in a fit of screaming, crying and cursing, her one-time foster mother recalled. Both her identity and the child's are protected by a court order.

"He was just a little boy," the woman recalled the girl saying, adding that she said she hated "all those assholes" who lived at Jeffrey's east-end home.

It was a reference, in part, to her grandparents, Elva Bottineau, 54, and her 53-year-old husband, Norman Kidman, who have pleaded not guilty to one count each of first-degree murder and unlawful confinement.

Jeffrey died from septic shock after prolonged starvation.

The foster mother told prosecutor Beverley Richards how she kept a diary of what Jeffrey's three siblings — two girls and a boy — said about their life with Bottineau and Kidman. The grandparents were given custody of the children under a court order after allegations of abuse were made against their mother.

The court has heard from other witnesses that the children had been branded by the grandparents as the "good kids" and the "bad kids," with Jeffrey and one sister being seen as bad.

When they first went to the foster home, Jeffrey's brother wanted to know where the "pig wall" was located because that's where Jeffrey and a sister had been ordered to sit at their grandparents' home, the foster mother recalled him asking.

The oldest child was "horrified" when her younger sister sat at the table with her to eat because back at her grandparents' house neither she nor Jeffrey were allowed to eat at the table but had to sit on the floor on a mat, she told Richards.

"Pigs don't eat on the floor and pigs don't share the table," she recalled the child telling her.

Gradually, the woman testified, the children divulged that they had "secrets" about life at their grandparents' house.

One girl blurted out that "bad things happened in the tub," going on to say that Kidman would hurt her, and pointed to her vagina, the woman recalled.

Her sister then described how Kidman would hit them with a metal spoon until their buttocks bled, she said.

Everyone in the house knew that Jeffrey was dying, the oldest girl told the foster parent, she recalled. The day before Jeffrey died he had to take his regular forced march around the kitchen for exercise, but he was so weak he collapsed, she recalled the child saying.

And with a representative from the Catholic Children's Aid society making notes in the gallery, the foster mother testified she recalled the girl asking her: "Why didn't they (CCAS) come before Jeffrey got sick?"










Anonymous said...

WHY a little girl asked
good question, what on earth have the children been exposed to, when most parents worry about the violence in cartoons,
how did they learn such language, such evil, was this not a CCAS placement. WHY. is it any consultation that they have now learnt from a child's murder, three children's unbelievable emotional damage. Is it ok for this excuse to be used over and over again.Its used in hospitals when a child dies of a medical error, does it help the family. NO.
WHY and How does a women run a Ministry licensed day care, with that kind of history.
were any of the children in the day care harmed, did anyone try and find out, if not WHY. they may be harbouring terrible secrets as well.
WHY is Mathew dead. also murdered in care. And why does no one report on it.
Why are so many others harmed in care. WHY are there so many web sites on the misdeeds of child protection. WHY. how come so many children are in care. And why does it not stop, the rare acts that are completely
unpredictable of sever child abuse by a parent. WHY.
do we gather all the children just in case. WHY on earth would a government give a charitable organization money, for adopting out children. Is this not something we should assume they would do out of the goodness of what there name implies. NO and many more are asking WHY. it cost less, of the taxpayers, but it will mean they need a constant flow of children. WHY not prevention. WHY not common sense.
WHY is our Government allowing it to continue, and taking Ontario to new levels of secrecy, WHY do they plan to try and pass a bill, that puts them so far behind the lessons learnt in the US from such a bill.
Will we then hear, we learnt from this, can they not use foresight, can they not look at what has happened in the US. and learn from the terrible mess it created, and how they now have learnt it did not work, more children died, failed adoptions, parents losing children that should never have, and winning lawsuits against the State. WHY.
Is erroring on the side of caution working. It harms children, it harms family's, it is costing everyone a great deal. WHY can they not learn from the experts, that do not benefit.
WHY is Child protection industry so reliant on psychology, do they forget satanic ritual abuse. repressed memory's FALSE. MTBP. the UK is taking a hit for that one. We just renamed it. Its not science. Child Protection is common sense. WHY do they not seem to be able to use it. Social workers are starting to come out and speak, unable to write up the false allegations any further, WHY do they need them, Jeffery Baldwin did not need false allegations. Where were you then. Why are fathers crying fowl in family courts.
Why are mothers and fathers weeping, more afraid of the CAS and CCAS then any terrorist threat that could be dreamt up. WHY do you allow citizens to suffer.
Children are always the ones that suffer the most. WHY do they go home, once aged out of care. The public has no one to call, when they truly fear for a child, because they fear the agency will fail that child more. WHY.
WHY have they had to make mandatory reporting of so many professionals, because they to fear the wrath of the agencies.WHY can we not trust Ontario's professionals judgement,
and do you understand that this to, could be abused, perhaps in order to protect NOT the child, but the professionals negligence, a call made because of other systems that are failing in this province. WHY in a society that should value children, and state they do, would they not demand answers, WHY fear. Fear of making waves and having them come for your children for some twisted allegation. But we do have real fear also, of the children your not seeing, not protecting, and those in care, and in group homes.
And how can we trust . This is Ontario. this is Canada. this is the children's future, you don't get second chances to make it right. The next generation, the next wave of violence may be caused by what child protection is doing, breaking bonds. Not adressing the larger issues. Not investing in children.
When will we truly have honesty and integrity in government ? WHY Ontario. WHY
The government is blind, WHY
Family courts are corrupt, WHY
Senator Anne Cools in the Supreme court questioned the corruption, others have as well. The over zealous nature of the child protection agencies, and they said back then, its getting worse, WHY. its about to get a whole lot worse, and does not have to, if someone with integrity, who values children, who does not throw out the word child advocate with no under standing of the needs of children and families. WHY
Jeffery's sister asked WHY
because no one cares, and your brothers murdered, would have been swept under the carpet, if the agency and this Ministry could of found a way not to learn the wrong lessons from it. WHY. because they can. And I pray that one day all three of them, will not ask

WHYs. and I wish them peace, and to find a way to be with one another and taught someone cares.

Anonymous said...

I think the WHY is because the CAS has never been accountable since it started in the late 1800's. It's crimes have never been officially revealed. A full legal inquiry into these agencies is needed. The Ombudsman having authority to investigate them is needed, and an entire overhaul of the system is needed. WHY is because to me they have gotten away with everything for decades and feel that they are above the law, any reality, and have no accountability. They have had a free for all in total irresponsibility and they must be stopped by sweeping changes. It is more then sad that so many were caught in a system that has destroyed many people. This site is just one of many that want them to be held responsible. I am glad that it is here, but very angry that it took a precious little boy to die for it to exist.

Anonymous said...

Proffessionals such as teachers have a legal obligation to report suspected child abuse. This is not taken lightly. They do not merely pick up the phone but the principal/vice-principal makes the final decision and makes the call. This is NOT governed by CAS but by the College of Teachers. These teachers could lose their ability to teach anywhwhere if they do not report obvious abuse. TEACHERS ARE NOT dictated to by CAS--in fact most teachers have far more education than CAS workers.

You are terribly misguided.

The writing is on the wall....whether you want to read it or not. MOST if not all children apprehended by CAS are apprehended for good reason. The sad fact is many more fall through the cracks and are not apprehended thus children die at the hands of their parents.

It is what happens to these children once they are apprehended that is the problem. CCAS is not capable of dealing with these children in a humane way (ie: Jeffrey's siblings) Jeffrey is a case in point--him and his siblings were apprehended BUT handed over to FAMILY members.

Why why why??? Jeffreys case has yet to have answers. But to suggest he should never have been taken from his parents is untrue. They were/are incompetent.

Anonymous said...

I the WHY poster, could not agree with you more. Yes your post answers the WHY, and well said, lets make change happen.

Anonymous said...

When a baby remains hospitalized for 2 months due to drug withdrawl this is child abuse. The mother knew only too well the consequences of using drugs while pregnant. This is not the first drug addicted baby she produced. She received counselling over and over again to no avail.

Child abuse is not as rare as you would have the reader believe--it is real and there are parents who abuse their children in many different ways.

I have no use for CAS. The reason? Over and over again these incompetent parents are given chances to get their children back. Many succeed only to have their children back in the CAS system again later.

I am not speaking from something I read somewhere. I am speaking from my own personal experiences.

Believe me CAS gives these parents the benefit of the doubt time and time again.

Look at Jeffreys parents....they abused 4 children yet they have visitation with their latest baby. This is with the idea of eventually reuniting this baby with the parents. Mom will never be capable--you can work on her until you are blue in the face. She will never have parenting skills--it is generational.

Anonymous said...

Amanda call Kim O'toole at 55 division she took over for davis.

Anonymous said...

I am laughing at the post that reads most children in CAS care are taken for good reason, I have taught, now you need to do some reading please. I also know many that have left CAS, and
including lawyers that will tell you
your misinformed.

Anonymous said...

I am not misinformed--I know more than I can divulge. I have inside information.

I have witnessed (personally) many cases where parents have been given the benefit of the doubt. Do as we say and the children will be returned. Children's Aid does not have the resources (thank Mike Harris for that) to even run a competent operation.

They under react not over react. These workers are incompetent in many cases.

I do not believe CAS barges into competent parents homes grabbing their children and running. I believe quite the contrary.

My information is based on real-life situations that are going on in a city near you. It is not information gleaned from some former incompetent CAS worker nor is it from reading some book.

Mine is based on real facts.

Laugh all you want --the laugh is on you...unfortunately I cannot divulge my sources...... at this time anyway.

There is none so blind as those that do not see.

Anonymous said...

I presume the lawyers you are referring to are the ones my tax dollars are paying for? These lawyers are provided by the taxpayers to help these parents get their children back. Do you think they could possibly be biased?

There are very few cases of children being removed without a good reason---one could be someone reporting child abuse to get even ie: a previous spouse.

I am unsure who you taught but I have teachers in my family--teachers who are teaching children

Anonymous said...

I agree that the individual who believes CAS almost always takes children for good reason should do research these issues - or better yet - provide substantive support for the facts he/she claims to have. Until then, having "inside information" that conveniently cannot be divulged simply doesn't cut it with any credible reader.

Jeffrey's Law said...

I think CAS take children more often than not because there is reason to. I also think there is too much emphasis on keeping a family together... this usually means giving a child back to parents who either don't really want it or those who have not proven they have changed in any way. (stopped doing drugs, ended an abusive relationship, received counselling, taken parenting classes, etc., etc.)

I also believe that sometimes children are taken away for the wrong reasons, but I think it is a small percentage. The Star did a huge week long 'look' into the CAS's, of mostly Toronto and surrounding area's. They gave facts, numbers, names, etc. of children who had been betrayed by the system (who all died) and there is only one instance where the mother desperately wanted her daughter back but custody was awarded to her ex-husband and his new wife. The new wife killed the little girl and the mother's claims that her child was being abused every time she visited her father were never heard.

The PARENT(S) in every other story were the murderers of the children.

I know not every story can be covered, but I have never read of parents demanding their child be returned to them by the CCAS or CAS. I know it happens, I just think the CAS's under react more often than not, as previously mentioned.

Anonymous said...

“These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.”

- Stephen Harper, boasting on opposing programs to eliminate child poverty, The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997

The real problem, its about to get much worse,

Anonymous said...


by John Chuckman : I hadn't realized until recently that Stephen Harper was using "God Bless Canada!" as a tagline for his speeches.

Some may think this a harmless, or even beneficent, expression for a politician to use, but for those with knowledge of history, nothing could be a more frightening.

I do believe we all know to whom Harper is tipping his hat with these words. George Bush, author of two wars which have killed more than a hundred thousand innocent people and the champion of an ugly set of repressive laws in the United States, says "God Bless America!" every chance he gets.

Some might say Bush uses the line because he has nothing else to say, and I don't doubt this is part of the truth. But slogans of this kind are always used to protect dangerous people from criticism. The words are used also as code, a kind of insidious political wink, to bloodthirsty supporters, the Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell types. They says things that cannot be uttered in public.

Jeffrey's Law said...

Oh yeah! Stephen Harper is really scary! He is NOT the lesser of the two evils by a long shot! I'd much rather see the Liberals back in than have him running my country. Talk of abortion and gay marriage has come up again and I hate when they use issues like those as campaign 'candy'! Whatever I believe, I think everyone's pursuit of happiness comes first as long as it does not hurt anyone. I'm more concerned about gun violence and children dying than a woman having an abortion or(and you may say it's the same thing, but it's not) Jim and Bill getting married! Religion also has no place in government and George Bush is the scariest leader of my lifetime! I honestly don't think he actually believes in god, or he would be more fearful of his final judgement!

Stephen Harper will cut social programs;
healthcare, children's services, parenting services, child care benefits, etc., etc. For ours, and a lot of causes, he is NOT the right leader.

Anonymous said...

glad you agree, I fear this guy he is a Bush a like. and we will not have less shootings, we may have more, he wants to remove the messures we have in place on the guns as well. tough on crime, the people doing the shotting dont care how tough they get, it has been proven it does not reduce gang activivty over and over again in the States, you need to get rid of the guns as well, not build more prisons.

Anonymous said...

On average, from 1974 to 1999 about 33 Canadian children were murdered their by parents each year. More recently, these numbers have shown a declining trend. For example, in 2003, 23 Canadian children were murdered by parents. Please bear in mind these figures include a high incidence of wrongful convictions such as deaths attributed to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, Dr. Charles Smith, and similar factors. It is also worth noting that the rate of children murdered in institutional settings dwarfs these numbers on a per capita basis.

Similar misinformation applies to parental drug use, abusive relationships and other areas mentioned by the poster. With respect to his/her comment that there is too much emphasis on keeping families together, virtually every study confirms the emotional devastation inflicted on children who are removed from their natural parents.

If the writer doubts that children are taken for no reason or that parents desperately want them back, he/she should also research this issue starting with websites such as Fix CAS (which has excellent links) or Canada Court Watch.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Amanda. It seems every time I throw the idea out that CAS underreacts instad of overreacts nobody every agrees with me.

There is far too much emphasis on keeping the family together.
Children are returned when they shouldnt be.

Some posts would have me believe children are snatched from parents because their houses are messy. That is not true. Common sense tells you it is not true. Yes a x-spouse could possibly cause problems but this would be the only exception.

And no I will not shoot the messenger. I do not divulge my sources or they will no longer be my sources.

Come Monday we are going to be in HUGE trouble. George Bush will be running Canada. Any and all social programs are in trouble but Alberta and Bay street will be happy. Alberta will be dictating to Harper--every one of the right wing christian fundamentalist in Alberta.

Get out and vote!!!!

Anonymous said...

for the doubters that CAS removes cases of children, that should have not been removed, ASK the Ombudsman office. Read about it, the Minister does not even deny it happens, and I did not need inside information, I look at Health Canada's own web site, the court docs, are on the voca site as well,,Read Richard Gills the writer of ASFA. The centre for Cultural and renewal. read . until you are willing to look at the facts your an base you opinion on ignorance, your an IDIOT. Can you not read, the Ontario legislator. its also there, messy house is why a foster parent lost foster children.
and it is a trick they use. Social workers, use the psychology Industry, with no scientific peer reviewed studies, if you have one, please refer to it, so it can be verified, I gave you all the information you would need to verify what so many people here have been trying to point out, you just don't get it, CAS is out of control, so stop abusing your child, by choosing to remain ignorant, because stupidly is risk of child abuse in my opinion, and do some research. And no I never lost a child to CAS , but as a humanitarian, neither should any parent for a messy house, or because this system errs to often on the side of caution, and knows and does not deny it sweeps many children and families into that net. Why would you deny it, when they don't?????? Read Chatelaine, Dec issue. Speak to John Dunn. Lots of whys to find out why this system fails, and it fails Children who really do need services, Family unification is not the goal of the CAS the law was changed. and watch the Fifth estate.

Anonymous said...

Stop calling people idiots!

As I said before I stand by my word--exception malicious reports (by x-spouse, friend or family)which can happen but rare.

Since your information is supposedly coming from X- lawyers and X-CAS workers why not throw their name out there? Perhaps they could help Jeffrey's cause. I suspect they dont exist.

I dont need to read what you are telling me--I already have. I have also had exposure to the innocent children and their incompetent parents. What I have seen I dont like. I have seen the lawyers (paid for with tax dollars) fight like hell for parents whose children should never be returned. I have seen the children returned to the parents (or another family member) only to end up back in the system later. I have seen the "messy houses" food in the fridge, addicts coming and going, domestic abuse prevalent, children under age left alone etc etc. I have seen the babies in hospitals for weeks on end while the medical staff try to wean them off whatever drugs they are born addicted to. This is hapenning at a hospital near you.

As I said before I have seen the victims and it is not a pretty sight.

I will not divulge my sources--it wouldnt matter what I said to you anyways. Your mind is made up.

I have seen your ramblings on this blog before....environment abusive, lead paint is abusive, etc etc. You make no sense whatsoever. Ignorance is abusive? That is a new one--then I assume you are abusive?

I, however, refuse to stoop to your low standards by calling you names. Worth noting, nonetheless, is your paranoia.

I will not comment further on your ramblings. All I am doing is providing you with a forum to vent.

I refuse to encourage dellusions.

Anonymous said...

Lawyer Silver look her up, Foutiane use to work for CAS, switched sides.
Health Canada web site, the false alligatins and how to deal with them the UK and MTBP its on the net. it was in Chatalaine lol yes the environemnt is abusive, have you been chewing on lead paint.

Anonymous said...

Ontario promises action on care of disabled kids

Updated Thu. May. 26 2005 2:10 PM ET News Staff

The Ontario government has promised to immediately follow up on a report by its ombudsman that says severely disabled children are being unnecessarily separated from their families.

Children Services Minister Marie Bountrogianni said Thursday she has asked the Children's Aid Society to identify such children.

That was one of the recommendations by ombudsman Andre Marin in his 44-page report -- entitled Between a Rock and a Hard Place -- released Thursday.

Anne Larcade, who gave up custody of her disabled child because she couldn't afford to provide proper care, told Broadcast News she was cautiously optimistic the report's recommendations would be followed.

Marin demanded the provincial government take immediate action to ensure severely disabled children don't have to be surrendered by their families before they can get proper care.

His report said up to 150 Ontario families have been put in that situation "out of desperation."

Marin characterized that as "unjust, oppressive and unfair."

In cases where the families have had to surrender their children to a Children's Aid Society, Marin called for their parental rights to be restored and for the government to give the families enough money to allow them to provide adequate care.

The report is in response to complaints by six families who said they had to give up custody of their severely disabled children.

When the probe was announced, dozens of other families stepped forward.

The affected families' children have autism or similar problems. In many cases, they are physically or mentally challenged.

The report claimed "governments have preferred to study the matter to death" rather than act to correct the injustice.

"Unless something is done urgently, it will be happening not only in this day and age, but again tomorrow and a year after tomorrow,'' the report said.

With files from The Canadian Press

Anonymous said...

Child Maltreatment Division
A.L. 0701D
HPB Bldg #7, Tunney's Pasture
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0L2
Telephone: (613) 957-4689
Fax: (613) 941-9927 In 1998, there were an estimated 21.52 investigations of child maltreatment per 1,000 children in Canada. Forty-five percent of these investigations were substantiated, 22% remained suspected, and 33% were found to be unsubstantiated.

Anonymous said...

Hey thanks for the diagnosis, paranoid, I will sue the shrink, for misdiagnosis, he said I was rapid cycling between anal retentive behaviour, and catatonic, I didn't think he was right, I have never drank cats as tonics, or used them as a means of reliving constipation. Where did you get your degree. ? SW or psychology,
What do you think the Baldwin's suffer from may I ask??? I hope it wont matter much longer, perhaps in jail they will both be wishing to be a bit less anal. that's hope.

Anonymous said...

Readers may remember Jeanette Lewis' reference to the stringent standard CAS agencies were held up to. What she didn't say is that these evaluations are internal - relying entirely on a meaningless peer assessment method. Consequently, a CAS agency that is considered among the worst in Ontario promotes itself as the second leading agency in the province.

Similarly, the Child Maltreatment Division/Health Canada statistics are based completely on information provided by CAS employees, whose opinions are accepted as facts without any independent evaluation. Anyone who's aware of the extent to which CAS lies will understand these statistics have no underlying validity.

Moreover, CAS assessments are based on abuse and neglect definitions that are meaningless. Virtually any parental action can be categorized as abuse or neglect.

Curiously, the study does not consider the greater issue of abuse outside the family. For example, CAS does not protect children from abuse inflict by government and government funded agencies such as schools - or itself for that matter. You may not believe this, but the principal at my daughter's elementary school actually intended to build cages restricting students in each class during recess and lunch hours. Parental complaints put a stop to it.

Anonymous said...

Readers may remember Jeanette Lewis' reference to the stringent standard CAS agencies were held up to. What she didn't say is that these evaluations are internal - relying entirely on a meaningless peer assessment method. Consequently, a CAS agency that is considered among the worst in Ontario promotes itself as the second leading agency in the province.

Similarly, the Child Maltreatment Division/Health Canada statistics are based completely on information provided by CAS employees, whose opinions are accepted as facts without any independent evaluation. Anyone who's aware of the extent to which CAS lies will understand these statistics have no underlying validity.

Moreover, CAS assessments are based on abuse and neglect definitions that are meaningless. Virtually any parental action can be categorized as abuse or neglect.

Curiously, the study does not consider the greater issue of abuse outside the family. For example, CAS does not protect children from abuse inflict by government and government funded agencies such as schools - or itself for that matter. You may not believe this, but the principal at my daughter's elementary school actually intended to build cages restricting students in each class during recess and lunch hours. Parental complaints put a stop to it.

Anonymous said...

Why the HELL do you keep saying "what's wrong with the Baldwins"The BALDWIN's are the beautiful siblings of Jeffery.Refer to "the Baldwins" as RICHARD and Richard ONLY!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

The poster who suggested teachers and principals were an effective safeguard against frivolous reports of child abuse may wish to consider the case of Wanda Young. The Supreme Court just awarded Wanda over $800,000 for having her life ruined by the irresponsible actions of her professor and university which branded her a child abuser. Tellingly, the Child Welfare League of Canada (an association of vested interests including Children's Aid Societies) argued against Wanda and engaged in fear mongering following the decision. The Newfoundland Court of Appeal did everything in its power to prevent her from her case going forward.

This in itself should tell readers something about how the system really operates. Parent are groundlessly smeared and labelled child abusers by unaccountable fanatics on an ongoing basis. Hopefully, Wanda's victory will put a chill into CAS agencies that have been free to abuse families and individuals at will.

Anonymous said...

RE Wanda's case.

First I would really like to know how someone so stupid could possibly be seeking a post-secondary education. Plaguerism is off-limits and well published by all institutions.

Secondly this person did not have HER children taken away for abuse--she had no kids.

Thirdly this has nothing at all to do with my previous post. I was writing about abused children attending school and the teacher spotting obvious abuse of some sort or NEGLECT. This abuse or neglect is then reported to the principal who then makes the decision on the next step. This is public school NOT post-secondary education I was referring to.

The $800,000 she received were her costs.

LASTLY do you remember the little girl who was murdered and chopped up and buried along the shores of Lake Ontario?????? About 4 years ago...her last name was Khan. When the police recovered the body parts they could not put a name to her face as she had not been reported missing by her abusive father and stepmother. Do you remember how the police were able to identify her?

I do.

The teacher of this poor little girl spoke to the police when they made a safety visit to the school. The police were able to match her DNA with some on the art work this little girl had done. Had it not been for this teacher her abusive father and stepmother would not be in jail as I write.

This little girl deserved more. She at least had a burial and funeral.

Don't tell me teachers are over reacting.
These are the same people who are with these children 6 hours a day.

They can provide a voice for some of the most vulnerable members of society.

Anonymous said...

The truth is, virtually every child has been physically, emotionally or sexually abused by a teacher at some point in their school years. The teachers in Wanda Young's case were the head of the Department of Social Work at Memorial University and her professor - both of whom are significantly higher on the child-welfare food chain than an elementary or high school teacher. In this case, the superior approved the fanatical actions of his subordinate - the safeguard you referred to meant nothing. Over 20% of CAS referrals come from teachers purely on the basis of subjective suspicion. Like the people at Memorial they work sureptitiously, without contacting parents and allowing CAS into interview children without parental knowledge. When school testing in Ontario was initiated, teacher markers reported over 70 students to CAS on the basis of a creative writing exercise - which should give you some idea of their credentials in reporting abuse. In my young daughter's class, teachers have been responsible for putting two wonderful families I know through hell on the basis of their groundless suspicions. Over the past twenty years, I have consistently witnessed teachers and principals who should not be allowed in the system. I do not share your elevated view of this profession.

By the way, plaguerism was not an issue in Wanda Young's case. Why you call Wanda stupid when you do not know the facts and it was the "experts" who showed how utterly unqualified they were for their roles.

Anonymous said...

You obviously have issues that only a professional can help you with. Sorry but I (like many before and after me) have NOT been abused by any teacher!

Since you think of yourself as high almighty why don't you home school your "illusive" kids?

I have read the case on Wanda--I read it on the Supreme Court of Canada reports.

Your ramblings do not warrant any further discussion.

Go get help..... or get a life.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure the last time you checked the Ontario curriculum expectations. It generally runs along the line "Johnny has demonstrated the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time." Children that legitimately excel in any area do not learn these skills in school but through their own skills, external programs, mentors, and parents. People like Wayne Gretzky, Bill Gates,Mike Lazaridis did not learn their skills in the public education system. In fact, children are entering university without basic reading skills.

Children who are homeschooled demonstrate far higher accomplishments than children in the education system. Unfortunately, they are targeted by CAS. Check out the Home School League Defence Association of Canada's position on this.

Perhaps you are unaware of the history of Ontario school boards in quietly transferring abusive teachers to other schools. Teacher sexual abuse in Ontario is a frequent news item. Check it out yourself. Students are commonly subjected to the tyranny of small-minded individuals who engage in screaming and sarcasm on a daily basis. In my community, children have been placed under stairwells for punishment and a principal attempted to build cages to put children in at recess. Teachers with negative approaches are endemic, accounting for millions of entries on the Internet.

If you misinterpret my concern as being high and mighty it reflects only on you. I marvel at your attempt to avoid answering the points I have raised - why do you call Wanda Young stupid and why do you claim plaguerism was a factor in her case?

Anonymous said...

Excuse my language decent bloogers:

To the latest post:

Go get help perhaps at CAMH or something ...either that or get fucked or something. You are a total loser who does not warrant anyones time. You obviously are so uneducated or stupid you don't even understand what you are reading or writing.

Get out a dictionary while reading obviously have a limited vocabulary.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure you don't realize this, but every time you post you diminish your credibility. At this point, you have reduced yourself to a profane moron who has nothing to say and can only froth at the mouth. I suppose that's the only option available to you now, seeing you can't justify your position or answer my questions. In short, you're exposed - your inability to make any rational contribution is clear. If anyone needs counsel, it is you.

By the way, your reference to "illusive children" may reflect an attempt to sound intelligent, but is bizarre in the context you have used it and holds meaning only to you.

Not surprisingly, you claim my comments warrant no further discussion - a common practice blowhards use to get the last word when they're in over their heads. It may work in your limited circle but not in mine. It's no surprise that you abandoned your word with a fanatical outburst of this type.

Please take your own advice and look up the word plagiarism in the dictionary. Based on your posts, you have no basis to call me or anyone else (except yourself) a loser. That comes through loud and clear.

My guess is you thrive on the attention you receive by advancing your uninformed opinions. Keep it up. You have no credibility at all.

Anonymous said...

The good news is that those who are not familiar with the issues that may have taken the ravings of this profane lunatic at face value may be more inclined to research them.