Search This Blog

Search This Blog

Search This Blog

Translate

Google+ Followers

Wednesday, January 18, 2006



Jeffrey's short, tragic life
Jan. 18, 2006. 06:16 AM
NICK PRON
COURTS BUREAU

Jeffrey Baldwin was just a few weeks old and already he had a nickname.
Looking at the baby with the sweet smile and adorable blond ringlets, the proud father said the tight curls reminded him of popcorn. So he dubbed him “Jeffy Pops.”
“He was such a cutie,” Jeffrey’s grandmother, Susan Dimitriadis, recalled. “We all adored him.”
Less than six years later, little “Jeffy Pops” would be dead, starved of food and affection in what one doctor later described as possibly the worst case of child malnutrition ever seen in Canada.
Jeffrey’s short, tragic life can be told through snapshots taken by his father, Richard Baldwin, which he later gave to Dimitriadis. One shows him with his siblings at Christmas 2001, Jeffrey almost a head shorter than his younger brother.
The photos are all she has left to remind her of her doomed grandson, who later became the “invisible child in the middle room” at the east end home of his maternal grandparents, Elva Bottineau and Norman Kidman. Jeffrey died in the house near Gerrard St. E. and Greenwood Ave. on Nov. 30, 2002.
The couple was charged with first-degree murder, but proclaimed their innocence. Jeffrey was dim-witted, Kidman complained to the police, and couldn’t be toilet trained. He was damaged goods when they got custody, she said. Their four-month trial by judge alone ended yesterday. In his closing remarks, Bottineau’s lawyer Anil Kapoor said she never intended to kill Jeffrey and added that with her I.Q. of 69, she never thought that he might die.
Kidman was “grossly negligent” for doing nothing to help Jeffrey, and guilty of manslaughter but not murder, his lawyer Robert Richardson said in his final remarks to Mr. Justice David Watt, who will deliver his verdict on Feb. 16. If convicted, Bottineau, 54, and her common-law husband, Kidman, 53, could get life in prison.
Throughout the trial, Bottineau and Kidman sat expressionless while they listened to evidence that brought tears to the eyes of courtroom observers and left them wondering how a defenceless child could suffer such a terrible fate. How could a child starve to death in the heart of Canada’s richest city? Why did nobody come to his aid? Where was the Catholic Children’s Aid Society?
Those questions were never answered at the trial that offered some stark glimpses at the short, tragic life of Jeffrey Baldwin. In a brief moment of joy during an interview with the Toronto Star, Dimitriadis recalled the infant Jeffrey’s cheery little smile as she bounced the 10-pound baby boy on her lap shortly after he was born at Doctor’s hospital on Jan. 20, 1997.
Dimitriadis had never wanted her son, Richard, to become a father so soon, and definitely not with Yvonne Kidman. After all, both were still children themselves in 1994 when they first moved in together, he 17 and she 16.
The ill-fated union of the two teenagers would be a continuation of a cycle of abuse that dated back at least two generations in both families.
Dimitriadis had tried but couldn’t stop her strong-willed son when he dropped out of high school to get a job as a mover, then left home and moved in with Yvonne.
It was a volatile relationship from the start. In 1994, the Catholic Children’s Aid Society was called to investigate reports that a baby had been left alone by her squabbling parents. The couple was out in the street, screaming at each other while their first child, a daughter, was alone in the crib of their basement apartment.
It was recommended that the couple get counselling, and that Richard, who had a learning disability, get further therapy for anger management. He didn’t, and their daughter was later placed with Bottineau and Kidman by a court order.
Three years later, the baby Jeffrey appeared healthy and happy, even in the tumultuous home of his young parents. But there were signs that their fighting was affecting him. As soon as he was able to crawl, around seven months, Jeffrey started banging his head on the concrete floor of the basement apartment. A doctor told the couple Jeffrey would grow out of it.
Heavier than most babies at birth, Jeffrey was also taller than 97 per cent of infants his age, according to developmental charts. Had Jeffrey continued at the same rate of growth, he would have weighed about 44 pounds by his sixth birthday. When he died two months before he would have turned 6, he weighed just 21 pounds, about the body weight of a 10-month-old infant, and a pound less than his first birthday.
About a year after Jeffrey, their third child, was born, the couple had decided to split up. They have since got back together. It was agreed that Yvonne would take Jeffrey and his sister, and Richard would continue to pay support.
At the time, Bottineau was considered “an ally” of the Catholic Children’s Aid Society, a seemingly concerned grandparent trying to help her daughter and her common-law spouse sort through their difficulties. So there was no opposition from the society when Bottineau and Kidman got custody of two more of the couple’s children, Jeffrey and his sister.
In October 1999, when Yvonne had her fourth child, the boy was once again given to Bottineau and Kidman through a court order, and once again, there was no opposition from the society.
Initially, at least, the placement of the four children with the grandparents seemed to be working. Kidman took them for treats to McDonald’s restaurant, and reportedly “doted” on his grandchildren. Pictures show Jeffrey cuddling up to his grandad.
Neighbours recall seeing Bottineau walking about the neighbourhood with Jeffrey safely tucked into his stroller, a seemingly happy and well-fed child.
During arranged visits - a court had given Bottineau full authority over the children’s visitors - Dimitriadis remembered watching Jeffrey merrily playing trucks with his siblings in the livingroom of their new home. Or frolicking in the backyard on the swing set. A neighbour even wrote a letter of reference for Bottineau who wanted to look after other children. “The children are in good health and well cared for ... very happy-go-lucky kids,” the neighbour wrote Jennifer Noseworthy in the fall of 2000.
“I have witnessed the amount of love and affection the children get on a daily basis. I am very confident in the good care they are receiving. Elva should be congratulated on the way they have accepted and cared for the children.”
But there were signs of trouble in late 2000. A case worker with the Toronto Children’s Aid Society noticed Jeffrey had a bruise under an eye. It was passed off as an accident on the swings. The file was closed on Sept. 15, 2000 with the note: “No indication of imminent risk to the children.”
A year earlier, 1999 when she last saw the children, Dimitriadis recalled that it was a short, strained visit. Although her grandchildren were happily playing in the living room, she sensed there was trouble in the crowded, semi-detached dwelling, home to six children, six adults and a dog, Bear.
When Dimitriadis returned at Christmas, bringing presents, she had the door slammed in her face by Kidman who told her not to bother coming back. Dimitriadis complained to the Catholic Children’s Aid Society and was told that it was up to Bottineau to decide who saw the children.
Early in 2001, Dimitriadis got the first of what would be a string of disturbing pictures of Jeffrey. While her grandson still looked healthy, his cheery smile was gone.
“There’s something wrong with that child,” she told her son. “Why is there so much tension in his face?”
She was told he had a cold. The boy’s father complained that he never got to see Jeffrey that much either, and then only with the permission of Bottineau.
Behind the closed doors of the east end home a human tragedy was evolving. Jeffrey and a sister had become branded as “the bad ones” in the family, while his oldest sister and baby brother were known as “the good ones.”
Bottineau no longer took Jeffrey for walks around the neighbourhood. He was about to become the “invisible child,” the “freak,” while his next oldest sister was called “psycho.”
Bottineau once complained to a neighbour about being overwhelmed by the demands of raising four children. She was having trouble toilet training Jeffrey and his sister.
Despite having six kids of her own, raising four grandchildren and babysitting other youngsters in the neighbourhood, Bottineau was not comfortable around pre-pubescents.
While growing up in a town north of Toronto, Bottineau had watched helplessly as her alcoholic stepfather pushed her mother down the stairs and chased her around the house with an axe, once nearly cutting off a breast.
After leaving home at 16, Bottineau married a distant cousin, a union that resulted in three children. The couple’s first child, a four-month-old girl, died under suspicious circumstances. Bottineau was later convicted of assault causing bodily harm in the girl’s death. After divorcing her cousin, Bottineau’s subsequent common-law marriage to Kidman produced three more children, including Yvonne.
A psychological report submitted at the trial described Bottineau as having borderline intelligence and being quick-tempered, hostile and a “danger to herself and others.” She was an “incompetent parent” who was “incapable of coping” with the demands of children.
Kidman, a groundskeeper with Metro Housing, was also not comfortable in his role as a parent. He got “anxious and frustrated,” overwhelmed by the demands of children.
He let Elva set the rules for the family, and he was the enforcer. Disobey, and the children got a spanking, a whack on the head with a rolled up newspaper, a smack with a metal spoon.
Perhaps sensing she needed help, Bottineau once asked a neighbour if she wanted to adopt Jeffrey. The woman, with a newborn of her own, declined the offer.
By 2001, Jeffrey had become a “non-person,” the family’s little secret who stayed at home, hidden away from the world. He should have been getting ready for junior kindergarten. But since his grandparents had given up trying to toilet train the child, he never went to school.
Jeffrey and his next oldest sister were banished to the middle bedroom of the second floor and locked in at night. The furnace vents to the room were closed. The room that was always cold, also served as their bathroom.
While his sister eventually got toilet-trained and went to school, Jeffrey was constantly being screamed at for soiling his pants, his bed and the floor around his crib.
His daily routine was always the same: After being freed from his bedroom around noon, he would be bathed to wash a night’s worth of fecal matter off his body.
Then he had lunch, eating out of a bowl with his hands, sitting on the floor in his designated spot on a rug by the door, dubbed the “pig corner.” He wasn’t fit to eat at the table with the other children, who wouldn’t play with him.
In the afternoons he was allowed to play by himself with toys belonging to his siblings. His favourite was trucks. Or he watched television while his grandmother chatted away on the Internet.
When Kidman returned home from work late in the afternoon to take over the television, parking himself in his La-Z-boy chair, Jeffrey was often ordered back to “his spot,” the dirty mat by the door, where he stayed until bedtime. Some days, when she was busy chatting on the Internet, Bottineau kept Jeffrey locked in his room all day, his cries to be let out ignored. Instead of affection, Jeffrey was ridiculed, and hit whenever people got frustrated with him.
When James Mills, an unemployed boyfriend of one of the couple’s daughters, moved into the house, he said he was there for nearly two weeks before he even saw the child.
Mills was in the kitchen when he heard a tiny voice, and swung around to see Jeffrey sitting in his spot by the wall. “Hello, James,” said Jeffrey. The boy who was called “the retard” was bright enough to have learned the newcomer’s name.
Mills was shocked at Jeffrey’s wasted frame and even though he suspected the child was dying, he never thought of going to the authorities for help.
Jeffrey was back in his locked room nightly by about 8 p.m. Toward the end, his body was so weak that it took him 10 minutes to get up the stairs. Nobody thought to help him. It was like he wasn’t there.
One summer evening when the other children were taken to the park to watch a fireworks display, Jeffrey stayed behind, locked in his bedroom. After the fireworks, his oldest sister returned, filled with childhood excitement at the explosions of colour she had witnessed that evening. She went up the stairs to Jeffrey’s bedroom, sat on the floor outside his room and called out his name.
Shivering in his damp room, Jeffrey listened through the door while she described the wonders he had missed. It was one of the rare displays of affection he would experience in his brief, painful life.
On Nov. 30, 2002, Bottineau called 911 to report a child not breathing. Emergency crews gasped when they first saw Jeffrey’s wasted body. He was all skin and bones, covered in sores with a scaly rash from sleeping in his own bodily wastes. He had more than a dozen distinct bruises and abrasions. His once-sparkling brown eyes were mere sink holes in his shrivelled-up face.
The official cause of death was septic shock, his body too weak from hunger to fight off the ravages of bacterial pneumonia.
Throughout the trial of Bottineau and Kidman, people cried unashamedly, flinching over eyewitness accounts of Jeffrey’s wretched existence, of how he drank water from the dog bowl or the toilet, or got a beating when he was slow cleaning his feces off the wall.
In murder trials, there is usually an undercurrent of anger against the accused, though they are presumed innocent until a judge or jury decides otherwise. In Jeffrey’s trial there was an added emotion - disgust.
Not only for the grandparents accused of his murder, but for the system which failed to protect a helpless child.
Throughout the trial, the finger of blame was pointed at the Catholic Chidren’s Aid Society for their part in the tragedy and their apparent reluctance to turn over files about the case.
That prompted a society lawyer to step forward, and clear the air of the apparent “misinformation” given to the court. A factum filed at the murder trial said the society had “at all times” co-operated with the police and the prosecutor.
The society had been “aware” that the family court had awarded custody of Jeffrey, and his three siblings, to Bottineau and Kidman, and agreed with the decision.
How could an agency whose sole job is the welfare of children support rulings that turned over four innocent children to a pair of convicted child abusers, people wanted to know.
Surprising indeed since the society had a file on Bottineau, at the time, dating back 29 years to the death of her first of six children, whose injuries were described as Battered Child Syndrome.
As for Kidman, his file with the society at the time dated back 19 years to his conviction on two counts of assault causing bodily harm. But the damning information was never passed along to the three separate custody court hearings. Why?
One brief line in their factum explained the oversight by the government-funded agency. It read: “Unfortunately, its records were not checked.”
During the trial, a memorial was erected to Jeffrey in Greenwood Park. It was meant not only as a tribute, but also a reminder for everyone to be vigilant for “other small voices” who might be in trouble. Despite the belated concern from the community for Jeffrey, even in death he has suffered one final indignity.
His remains were cremated and given to his parents in a small, standard-sized container from the funeral home after a private service. Since his parents didn’t have an urn for Jeffrey, they decided to pour his ashes into an urn that contained the remains of another of their children, Gregory, who was stillborn, and cremated.
But there wasn’t enough room for the two sets of ashes in the teddy bear-shaped urn. So only part of Jeffrey’s remains fit into the urn containing the ashes of the other child.
The rest of Jeffrey’s ashes are in a box on a shelf at the east end home of his parents, both receptacles awaiting a final resting place. A mother, Amanda Reed, who came to the trial was inspired to write a poem that is now part of the memorial to Jeffrey in Greenwood Park. It reads, in part:
“In remembrance of a forgotten child, Who lived his short life locked away in hungry darkness, “Kept out of sight, out of mind, Starved of love, joy and kindness, “But smile now child, be free now child Your sweet face will live forever in our hearts.”

29 comments:

ph said...

Pron's story in today's Star falls far short of Blatchford's hard hitting and insightful coverage.

Pron and the Star treat the CCAS with "kid gloves" which should come as no surprise.

Jeffrey would still be alive today if CCAS had not been asleep at the switch.

Anonymous said...

I agree! You can tell where his loyalties lie, but I think he is disgusted with the CCAS; Christie just happens to have a much sharper tongue, which I think everyone admires and appreciates.

Lisa said...

I'm glad that Sue finally spoke about Richard and the way he is. I'm sorry that all this happened, as a friend to Richard I had tried my hardest to lead him in the right direction away from Yvonne many times. The whole "lead a horse to water" keeps coming to mind. I am willing to bet that Jeffrey will not be buried, as the paternal Grandparents say they don't have enough money and you know that it truly doesn't matter to Richard and Yvonne if he has a final resting place because they can just shove the rest of his ashes with the next child of theirs that dies. These people are truly thoughtless and stupid, they have zero morals and should be shot.

Anonymous said...

Well Lisa Sue meant having no money fighting the CCAS,not buring him. I actually bought them an urn and I was Paying for the Burial and service,when Yvonne changed her mine after the urn was bought (of course)for the 2 boys.It was for Family only ,but we forgot Family to Richard and Yvonne are the Bottinea and Kidman clan.Elayne

Jeffrey's Law said...

It's heartbreaking that Jeffrey is not only not buried, but is MIXED with another baby! How do these people get by day to day??

I guess short of breaking into yvonne and richards apartment, Susan can only wait for them to give her the urn. Hoever, if anyone knows where they live...
just kidding! (sort of...)
Amanda

Anonymous said...

Ya,Yvonne was to cheap to buy Jeffrey an urn and felt about him the same as her mother, thats why she could care less where he go's.Half with a still born half of him in a cheap grey box.There was no other choice but to put them in the Urn together.Elayne

Jeffrey's Law said...

Does anyone know anyone who has ever previously or currently, worked at a children's aid society who would be willing to talk to me? I just want to know what the process is from the first call until the case is closed. What agents are required to do by law or policy. Thanks,
Amanda

Lisa said...

Amanda contact me I might have someone that you can talk to, othherwise I have all the pamphlets that are handed to a parent that is being investigated and how the whole process goes. Lisa P.s. Elayne I remember her saying that their wasn't enough money, I didn't know what for!

Therese said...

None of us should forget the disgraceful lack of attention on the part of the Ontario government in Jeffrey's and other cases. The government hands over an enormous amount of taxpayer's hard-earned dollars every year to the CCAS and the other CA Societies. The same government apparently demands no accountability from the societies. They are apparently free to do as they please, to the extent that the CCAS was able to remove Jeffrey's three siblings from their home of 3 years and place them in three separate foster-homes. Who cares about the emotional damage to already traumatized children. Not even the Minister, Ms. Chambers, had the power - and likely the inclination - to demand that the CCAS immediately reunite Jeffrey's siblings. They suffer, just as Jeffrey did, albeit in a more tragic manner, only because of the CCAS that is out of control and the government that tolerates it.

The CCAS and the other CA Societies act on behalf of the tax-payers of Ontario, they are our proxies. If we do not force an overhaul of the system, we are, in effect, condoning the way the CA Societies and the government protect or do not protect Ontario's children.

All demands for an enquiry after the sentence on Bottineau and Kidman has been handed down MUST/MUST demand accountability on the part of the Ontario government as well as the CCAS. The CCAS does not operate in a vacuum, it can act the way it does because no politician has had the moral courage to stop them, meanwhile the children of Ontario are expected to play Russian roulette, with their lives at stake. Some will manage to survive, with no thanks to the government or the CCAS, but thanks to good foster-parents who care for them. Others, like Jeffrey, have no chance of survival.

It is up to us to do something about this appalling disregard for the safety of our children. In order for evil to survive, it is enough that good men/women do nothing.
Therese.

Jeffrey's Law said...

Hey Terese,

Good to hear from you! :)

You're right, we, as taxpayers, are inadvertently supporting the CCAS; this corrupt orgasnization which I liken to the Canadian Mafia... they are untouchable.

But hey, if you like your tax dollars going to an organization such as the CCAS, (remember, to adopt or surrender a child to them, you MUST be of the Catholic religion, though all Canadians, even me the anti-religious, treehugging type, pay their 1.3 billion/ year salary)
an organization that is corrupt and kills kids, then feel free to donate your hard earned money to them.

All the rest of (sane) us, please keep writing to your local officials. Please, write to Dr. Cairns and Dr. Barry McLennan asking for an inquiry...

Anonymous said...

It is a very dangerous assumption to suggest that all foster parents are safe as they are not. While some may be, some are abusive as well. The system is a mess overall and it is imperative that above all out of this tragedy that the public demands accountability from the CAS agencies of Ontario.

Anonymous said...

Amanda I know several social workers that work for CAS and a few that have left. I am sure one would be willing to speak with you, I will send you her e-mail address. and hers yours ok,
violence begets violence lets raise above the pathetic lives of this family, and in Jeffery's name, do something that truly will make a difference. ask for transparency and accountability of all child protection agencies.and no I do not work for the CCAS.

Anonymous said...

Amanda I know several social workers that work for CAS and a few that have left. I am sure one would be willing to speak with you, I will send you her e-mail address. and hers yours ok,
violence begets violence lets raise above the pathetic lives of this family, and in Jeffery's name, do something that truly will make a difference. ask for transparency and accountability of all child protection agencies.

Anonymous said...

Well said Therese bravo It is the sad truth and nothing will change until we demand it. We need voices that do not fear the CAS. We need the government to act. I am getting no where calling or writing, they are blind with the greed of it all. perhaps a class action is the answer, finding a legal team willing , will be easier to do, then changing the corruption of this system. As child advocates as parents and taxpayers, we owe it to the children and family's that have been abused by the protectors

Anonymous said...

Yvonne must be pregnant almost all the time the way she has babies. I never knew about the stillborn baby. That makes 6 pregnancies and she's only how old?

Lisa said...

she has more pregnacies then 6, she has miscarried and had an abortion. She is 28 years old.

Therese said...

In my previous long-winded posting I tried to make the point that the Ont. government bears responsibility for the disastrous state of affairs that exists in the CA Societies. The tax-payers of Ont. similarly bear responsibility for allowing the dysfunctional "system" to be maintained with their money and for not holding the government to account. It has abdicated its responsibilities to the children of the province, who desperately rely on the province for the support and safety that they do not receive in their homes.
For those who are interested in Jeffrey's and other children's human rights: The Province of Ontario is in flagrant violation of its responsibilities under the Convention on the Rights of the Child which Canada ratified, if memory serves, in 1981/2. The full text of the Convention is available on its website. With Jeffrey's tragic case so fresh in our minds, it makes sobering reading.
Therese.

Therese. said...

It is unfortunate that the Judge was not due to deliver his verdict on January 20th - Jeffrey's birthday. He would have been 9 years old tomorrow had it not been for his grand-parents, his aunts and their partners.
Amanda, good that the Fifth Estate has expressed interest.
Would it be possible to obtain donations to pay for newspaper advertisement urging people to attend a rally/march from the Ont. Legislature to their partners in crime the CCAS, date to be decided. I would willingly contribute as I am sure would many other people. Press releases to the media might accomplish the same thing for free. A big turnout to such a rally would remove the government's/CCAS's impression that you may be just a one-woman band, and hence easy to ignore.
Therese.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Therese for your comments.

I also believe the Ontario Government must be held accountable. Much of the thanks can also go to Mike Harris and his "common sense revolution" where many (if not all) social problems were stripped of funds.

It is so refreshing to read some intelligent comments!

Therese said...

And thanks to you too Anonoymous for your comments! What did you think of the idea to have an organized rally/march to both Queen's Park and the CCAS? There is far more impact if there are many participants, if there is organized, visible anger on the streets, that a movement of concerned citizens is springing up and growing. The politicians and the CCAS have to get the message that people are mad and want the deaths and abuse of children in care to stop. When is the next election in Ontario?
After the train bombings and a couple of days before the national election, 1 million people marched in Madrid - in the rain. The government fell because it had sent Spanish troops to Iraq though the vast majority of Spaniards were against this. That government certainly got the message that people were mad. Around 200 people died in the bombings, horrific to be sure, but over the years probably 200 of Ontario's children have died due to Children's Aid carelessness and the government that aids and abets the Societies by looking the other way instead of prosecuting them for criminal negligence.
Today would have been Jeffrey's 9th birthday, poor little soul, may he finally rest in peace.
Therese.

Anonymous said...

I think the idea of a protest os very good providing you can get the numbers. The problem is the weather and to be effective it would need to be a working day.

Look at the case in NY at the moment....there are CAS workers who have already been dealt with due to the death of that little girl and CAS doing nothing....this case just hapenned and the parents havent even had their day in court. 1000 showed up at the funeral--many did not know this little girl.

Canadians are too laid back. I think a protest rally would be good at Queens Park also. I will attend any/all protests as I have in the past.

Therese said...

It is instructive to note that in late 2005 the State of New Jersey agreed to pay $12.5 million to 4 boys who were starved in foster care. This was an out of court settlement, the evidence - the physical condition of the boys, was apparently so compelling that the State realized it could not win.

A previous posting mentioned launching a class action suit against the Ont. govt. How I wish this could happen. It seems that the only way to force governments to clean up their acts is to sue them.
Therese.

Anonymous said...

and sue we will, A case just settled in Alberta against the government their, for abuse of the disabled. Good old Ralph.

One will be filed for the abuse of children and families in Ontario. By the parents that have had to live though false allegations. Read the ombudsman's web site this does happen. dufferin voca. Canada court watch. or ask your own MPPs it not unusual, and its hell. and no we don't have welfare lawyers to help out, as we don't fit into the income bracket.
The government has refused to hear the many cry for help, they have refused to put into place recommendations by the Supreme courts, on this issue. It is time for the stop allowing this government to abuse families and children under the name of child protection. Perhaps then they can truly provide the services to children in need of them.
And find the time to ensure foster placements and group homes are safe.
And lift the veil of secercy.

Anonymous said...

The one time cas does over react is whenthe allegations are against foster parents.Following allegations all kids are removed, CAS interrogations and then the police. This is true....look at Jeffreys siblings removed after ridiculous allegations. The sad thing is another good foster home bit the dust. I KNOW there are some unfit foster homes but most are good. I would never take on some of these kids in care. On top of dealing with troubled kids you are dealing with parents who see themselves as "victims" of CAS and see foster parents as part of the problem. Meanwhile these same parents do not show for visits, or show up high on something. Believe it or not there are many parents who relinquish rights to their kids because of their insatiable appetite for drugs /alcohol.

The sooner these unfit parents stop seeing themselves as victims but instead co-operate with CAS and follow their flimsey rules the sooner they will have their kids returned.

I have often thought of fostering but after all I have seen forget it. I refuse to be raked over the coals by addicts and bureacracy.

Anonymous said...

If the previous writer has any evidence to support his/her position it should be posted.

The truth is, CAS regularly removes children for no reason. As children confirm themselves, they become troubled in the system. Research shows the best place for children is with their parents and that foster homes do not serve the child's interests. The system is a major contributor to increasing social problems.

I believe the same writer attempted to characterize parents as murderers in another post, although child deaths of this type are virtually non-existent in Canada.

This attempt to gave his/her position credibility by characterizing parents as drug addicts that will do anything for a fix has no more validity. Readers are invited to research all the author's statements. You are certain to reach very different conclusions.

Anonymous said...

OMG!! Can't believe you have never heard of children dying at the hands of their parents!!!!!!!!!

Okay let me think quickly......Randall Dooley, Khan child, salsa dancer baby (Due to severe neglect--left for 35 hours alone in a 35C bedroom), and on and on and on....

I am not commenting further on this--I have beeter things to do than argue with someone who is either blind by choice or totally uninformed.

Anonymous said...

Ya children die from there parents and children also kill their parents,bottom line there are more good parents then bad! Be positive!

Anonymous said...

Thank God you have silenced yourself. It is tiresome to listen to someone that is so determined to ignore the facts. First, you refer to child deaths that occured over several years. Canada, a country of over 30,000,000 people currently records less than 25 children killed by parents each year. In other words, "virtually non-existent." These figures also include wrongful convictions attributed to SIDS, Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy and other factors, as well as damage caused by fanatical crusaders such as Dr. Charles Smith who was responsible for the wrongful conviction of numerous parents. Like all blowhards, you think mockery trumps truth - it obviously does not, but that will be lost on someone like you.

Anonymous said...

I absolutely do not agree that the best place for children is always with their parents. If that were so, why is there a CAS? It was started with very good intentions to fill a need. (It was started by the same man, sorry his name escapes me right now, who started the Society for the Protection against Cruelty to Animals. The children's branch was called the Society for the Protection gainst Cruelty to Children. The children's branch of the Society was started LATER than the SPCA!)

I notice though that you state 'Canada, a country of over 30,000,000 people currently records less than 25 children killed by parents each year. In other words, "virtually non-existent."' I think the key word is RECORDED.

'Ooops, my daughter fell down the stairs again, but this time bumped her head so bad she died. I am so sad, but it was an accident! You know how toddlers can be!' You think doctors, teachers, CAS, etc., don't hear this ALL the time?? I 100% believe there is a need for foster care, however, there are very good parents and there are very good foster homes. There are also (but like the previous poster said, there are more good than bad) very, very bad parents and foster homes.

That is why there is no easy solution, but the system must be over hauled so that kids can stay with their good parents and if they do not have good parents, they go to good foster homes. I think that is in simple enough terms to avoid confusion...