Search This Blog

Search This Blog

Search This Blog

Translate

Google+ Followers

Friday, February 17, 2006

Verdict April 7

The Toronto Star announced today that the verdict in Jeffrey's case is now scheduled for April 7 9:30am.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Its so the bill can pass, Please write,and the social policy folks on the last page.

Sally W said...

If the universe did start with a bang - when God loved and the angels sang - one of the sparks that flew - chased time to become you :) xaNax

Anonymous said...

The delay is to allow the C210 to pass quietly.
They do not the public reminded of the misdeeds of the Toronto CCAS.

We need to make a fuss now about this legislation.

Send an email to the Social Policy Committee and the Ombudsman. Call your MPP. Make your views known.

Anonymous said...

now this sight turned into a drugstore?i would keep these people off amanda or robin!!

Anonymous said...

How many babies disappear from a delivery room, are written off by judges as Paper Orphans then handed over by government agents with cash and continuing benefits to singles or couples every year in each state?

How many mothers cried on Mother's Day for return of their children or some personal contact?

How many people have witnessed or experienced abuses, have told HHS auditors and child protective services (CPS) boards, politicians, the press, their priests, have been ignored, have given up blowing the trumpet on government agent abuse against parents and caretakers?

How much will taxpayers, who fund a costly and damaging foster care system, pay for post-traumatic stress effects on children removed and impounded for SSI checks skimmed off by local agencies when relatives or family friends could provide a safe haven?

Not "Seeing" for Safety

Seeing is usually believing, and photographs of Iraqi prisoners, rudely and brutally treated by or in the company of government agents, illustrate unacceptable activity for Americans no matter how other nations interrogate.

Donald Rumsfeld and America swallowed the same bitter pill thanks to pictures. The camera rarely captures social workers and armed deputies wrestling terrified children from their parents' arms.

Sometimes believing becomes "seeing" when those expecting child abuse accept anonymous reports and justify them by harsh actions against innocents. No one expected the prisoner treatment in photographs still appearing.

Choosing to not believe--not to look, listen or check whistleblowers' repeated reports--meant delay for emerging truths of "family services" that might have been changed generations earlier so "it doesn't happen again."

Wisconsin "Won"

Maybe Tommy Thompson forgot the shameful DeShaney decision, a gift from the U.S. Supreme Court to Wisconsin; or perhaps he liked "The United States" siding with Winnebago County some years back. A worker's documented failure to personally check on the battered child permitted Joshua's father to ultimately crush his skull two decades ago.

What have taxpayers paid for brain-damaged Joshua's care since? How long did his father spend behind bars for injuring his son? Is Wisconsin proud the negligent agency "won" and the state saved face and finances?

Turns out the DeShaney decision protected only the tax coffers of Wisconsin and other states with its ruling: there is no Constitutional right to protection from private violence. What does that mean for "private" domestic violence?

Wisconsin's win won't help children or hold government agents accountable. Quite the opposite. Major child protection law has since been federalized; but, the U.S. Supremes relieved jurisdictions still hiding agent abuses from property owners and taxpayers who fund whatever elected officials vote to cover.

In war abroad or peace at home, government collects to provide good services or to pay off or "compensate" for bad deeds of its agents. The public pays in both directions.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld volunteered money from patriotic taxpayers' piggybanks to compensate foreign nationals injured by American government agents.

Will HHS Secretary Thompson do likewise for federally funded abuses of local and state agents against innocent American mothers and traumatized children?


BHBryan@aol.com

Kimberly Hart (ncadrc@aol.com)
Executive Director
National Child Abuse Defense & Resource Center
P.O. Box 638
Holland, OH 43528
Phone : 419-865-0513
Fax : 419-865-0526

This does pertain to the issues you have in Ontario, and others parts of Canada. Child Protection is a Racket. write for more details.
we all owe it to children, and familys

Anonymous said...

from Dufferin Voca
Saturday, November 19, 2005

The issue before the Texas Supreme Court is the right of fit parents to make the medical decisions for their children. By avoiding the real issue here the Texas Supreme Court has failed to make a decision that only they can make that would affect all Texans. It is not just an issue of clearing our name of medical neglect as Kathyrn Garcia has stated below. I talked to her about the real issues involved here and I don't see a one of them mentioned in the Caller-Times. Yes, CPS wants the case dismissed, because they know the effect a ruling in our favor would have on the organization.

CPS apparently can control even the Texas Supreme Court.

CPS already controls the local court systems. They have their judge, their lawyers, the Ad Litem attorney for the child, their CASA representatives, all in the palm of their hand and under their control. Parents have practically no escape from their grasp and control of the system. Katie Wernecke hired her own lawyer because her court appointed attorney Linda Schauer wasn't representing what Katie wanted, and he was thrown out by the assistant county attorney and the court. They couldn't allow an outsider to enter their little system. Judge Carl Lewis was on the board of CASA and just resigned last week. Why was Judge Lewis the only juvenile court judge hearing CPS cases? There was no due process in this court. There was no protection of our constitutional rights. Do you see the conflicts of interest here and possible wrong doings? There is no oversight of the CPS agency.

Texas has no guidelines to decide who gets to decide, the parents or the state. It is time for the Supreme Court to step up to the plate and do what has to be done: Set guidelines for who gets to decide. Does the United States Supreme court have to come in here and do what our Texas Supreme Court should do?

The way it is now: doctors are in charge of the medical decisions of our children. I find that not acceptable and I think most parents would. The doctor says do it or I call in CPS. The doctors are in charge of our kids. They are using our kids in scientific experiments for cancer research. They don't care what is the best treatment for your child; just got to complete the experiment and get those results and that research money for the hospital. Doesn't matter whether this child lives or dies as there is always another child coming for our next experiment.

The way it should work is that the doctor makes a recommendation, tells you all the pros and cons, and side effects, and possible alternatives, and you as fit parents make the decision for your child. After research and study, you may agree with your doctor and go ahead with the recommendation. If you don't agree, or the doctor did not tell you the whole story (most likely), you may want to seek a second and maybe a third opinion, before you reach a conclusion and a decision. Remember, doctors can only make recommendations! This case leaves doctors controlling and directing the medical care of our children.

You, as an adult, can decide if you go along with the doctor's recommendation or if you reject that recommendation. Children do not have that right to decide for themselves. The parents, acting in the best interest of the child, make those decisions for the child. Now, in our case, as in many others, the doctor makes a recommendation and if we don't agree with that recommendation he simply has to pick up the phone and call in CPS to take the child away from the parents and the child gets the treatments. There is an affidavit filed with the court and a court order is issued giving CPS complete physical and medical control over your child for the next 14 days. There is a 14 day period before you can even get a hearing on the issue and meanwhile CPS and the doctors have free reign to do anything medically they want to your child. In most cases the child gets the treatment and is returned to the parents within the 14 days. Fine, if it truly was a life saving emergency treatment and no time for a hearing. Sometimes there are religious issues involved too.

This measure was intended to be used in a life and death situation only. If the doctors and CPS get away with this crime in our case, and misuse of the system of laws, parents everywhere are going to lose complete control of the medical care of their children. We had completed the treatment plan outlined by the doctor. The results were back. My daughter, Katie, had no active cancer anywhere in her body at the time. It was completely dead. There was no medical emergency. We asked for a second opinion. The doctors didn't agree. We asked to seek a third opinion. That was denied and the doctor called in CPS to force us to undergo his "recommendation." Well it was no longer a recommendation but a forced treatment using the power of Child Protective Services.

This was a treatment that we did not want for our daughter or even believed she needed, given the limited information we had at the time. The cancer was dead. The doctors took no time to really answer our questions or explain anything or even consider the alternatives. We didn't sign anything refusing treatment. The next thing we knew CPS was knocking on our door with two police officers to take our daughter Katie. There was no discussion, no hearing before a judge, nothing at all.

The doctor simply reports you to CPS and sends a letter with his "recommendation." The CPS worker prepares an affidavit in cooperation with the county attorney and they take it to an emergency hearing before a judge and on that sworn affidavit the judge signs a court order giving CPS temporary managing conservatorship of your child. The problem is in our case this wasn't an emergency and our daughter was not at risk of dying immediately. The cancer was dead. But with some twisting of the truth, and outright lies and false information, a good CPS worker can make it look that way to the judge. And since this is always a secret emergency hearing where CPS fails to invite the parents and their attorney there is no one to question the validity of the affidavit. A sworn affidavit is considered hearsay in all other court proceeding until it is proven in court by cross examination of the person making the affidavit. And so CPS can't have the parents or their attorney present at this emergency hearing or they couldn't accomplish their goal of taking the child.

On the basis of such an affidavit they took Katie away from her parents. At our last court hearing with Judge Hunter, we submitted sworn affidavits from a doctor and another from an expert witness and both were rejected by the court and CPS attorneys because the doctor and expert witness were not present in the court room to be cross examined on their testimony. They can take my child away and have her treated with dangerous radiation against my wishes on the basis of a hearsay affidavit with no cross examination yet we cannot submit the same into evidence in court with supporting documents. Truly the courts and CPS don't have to follow the rules of evidence, unless they want to use the rule against you.

On top of all that CPS and these officers invaded my home without a search warrant and found some so called violations, and took my other three boys away without an emergency court hearing. In doing so the law requires a hearing to be held the next day in which the parents are supposed to appear again. Again we received no notice of this hearing and they manufactured another false amended affidavit to include all four kids now. Parents, representatives, and judges, CPS believes it is above the law. They do not follow the law in the family codes nor do they follow their own regulations and guidelines. They have no one overseeing the organization. There is no one to appeal your case to. We have an out of control agency. We spent over $150,000 on legal bills and expenses defending our case, most of which is still unpaid. This would bankrupt most families including ours. Here we are with a child with cancer and every dime should have gone into caring for and finding a cure for that child's cancer. This is just so wrong and just so unnecessary and just makes me sick to my stomach.

People we must stand up and say enough is enough. We must demand the Texas Supreme Court hear the issues involved here. We must call our Governor and legislatures to the task of correcting the Child Protective System. We must have some sort of an oversight committee or panel of parents to review decisions and actions of the agency.

One the other hand, the CPS agency should probably be dissolved. The present system is corrupt and no way to fix it. They do more harm then good. There is more abuse of kids in the system than ever done by parents outside. The more kids they take into the system the more money they make. Take a sick child that has cancer and that means big bucks.

CPS lied to the public and the press. CPS lied to the press and television crews stating that they wanted to keep the lines of communication open with the parents and Katie. Meanwhile in the court room, CPS was requesting to take away Katie's cell phone and computer and phone access and wanted to shut off all communication and visits with her parents. CPS said publicly and repeatedly that all they wanted was to get Katie the cancer treatments and get her well and return her back to her parents. That was a lie. According to my attorney Luis Corona, at our next to the last court hearing, CPS had filed for termination of our parental rights over Katie. They never had any intention of returning her to her parents. CPS filed to terminate our parental rights and to take Katie into permanent CPS custody until she could be adopted out.

The state blundered the case and blundered the treatment of my child, Katie. They took a child that didn't have any active cancer and returned us a child with about a 20% chance of surviving, according to M.D. Anderson, who used unproven and experimental drugs on Katie. So they gave her back because they don't want her dying in state care. That wouldn't look good. Now, if Katie dies in our care, they will prosecute my wife and me and put us in jail (See Channel III broadcast last Monday). Either way they win and finally get what they wanted -- the rest of our kids back in their care so they can adopt them out and make money on that end.

It is possible that the cancer would never have returned had Katie been left in our care. CPS ripped her from her parents love and health care and put her through severe emotional stress and trauma, with no nutritional support, allowing the cancer to return. Studies have shown that stress is enough to cause cancer.

Do you think it can't happen to you or this don't concern you? Think again. Cancer now happens to 1 in 3 people. That means before long there is a chance for nearly every family to have one member with cancer and one of those might just be your child too. It does not even have to be about cancer, just any illness where the treatment is controverisble. What about the drugs like Ritalin that some teacher thinks your kid needs because he doesn't sit still in school. Refuse the doctor's order to give it to your kid and CPS comes and takes your child away. It happens every day. The decision, here too, must ultimately be up to the fit parents to decide.

This is an issue for every parent in Texas. It is that important. Who do you want making medical decisions for your child? If you do nothing the doctors will dictate the treatment of your child. Child Protective Services becomes the enforcer of the doctors orders. The doctor is no longer making just a recommendation. As a consequence we have lost our children's care to the state. Big Money and the drug companies influence the doctors heavily. Before long, they will be testing drugs on our kids without our consent. Don't believe it. That is exactly what M.D. Anderson was doing with Katie Wernecke. They used drugs on her that were in a Phase 2 Clinical Trial.

Child Protective Services stole five months of my daughters precious life away from her family. They traumatized the boys in the family for life. The damage and cost of that is so high I cannot even place a figure on it. Yet, there is no one to hold CPS accountable for the damage they have done to my family and our lives. They are even immune from lawsuit under the law. We must make sure this can never happen to another Texas family again. I am calling, and want you to also, on the Supreme Court to act without delay and give some guidelines as to who gets to decide.

We don't need any more government intrusion into our lives and we certainly don't need some CPS worker, with 3 months of training, never even had kids of their own, making medical decisions for our children.

Parents join together with us and make your voices heard loud and clear. We are not going to stand for anymore. The time is now! We won't get another chance to change this again. Call the Texas Supreme Court and let your voice be heard. Call your representatives and tell them if you expect my vote then get to work and fix this problem.

Edward Wernecke

Can you take your child to a chiro in Ont. No not if your doctor finds out and disagrees, can you refuse vaccines, ? can you use alternative
health care, take a child to see another doctor or three, NO.
Can you disagree with a doctor, about your child's health care, No, if you do, and the doctor or hospital does not want you to question them, they call CAS/ CCAS, I did a bit of a survey this past week , calling lawyers in Ottawa, Toronto, Ham, and London, guess what there is an epidemic of a very rare disorder called Muchausens by proxy or since that term has been debunked in the UK, and its increasingly blurred definition, and ever growing range of all things, a normal parent may do, is now called fabricated disorder or other names.
Its of great use for the medical profession. Most of the cases according to the lawyers that practice family law in Ont. come from are leading Children's hospitals, all of which are also teaching hospitals, and have set up programs to self protect, and names them child abuse teams. There is no epidemic, and anyone sick enough to make a child ill, should be heard in criminal court. But there is an epidemic of medical errors being made. Is this one way to protect the system, and fund the other?

Anonymous said...

I am one of those who goes out onto the streets in the pre-dawn hours and knocks on doors that hide things I can only guess at until I'm inside. I do this in order to protect children. I do not want to go back to the days of "when in doubt yank 'em out" and the days when incompetent and worse foster care agencies were paid to abuse and neglect "rescued" children.

Please, to those who know nothing of the facts: Read and learn before you open your mouths.
This blog is about as serious as it gets but I realize that a little spice and humor are good things, and you'll find both throughout the blog, but please take the articles seriously.

I work in New York City's Emergency Children's Services and I know something about what I'm talking about.
From Weixel, a social worker in NY, a link to his blog can be found on Dufferin VOCA, fix CAS

Anonymous said...

Here we go again........cut and paste cut and paste!!!

Lets now try to save the US child protection services!!

Consider the low sucess rate in Ontario it seems our focus should remain here.

Anonymous said...

We have Members of the Ontario government reading this blog, and others. You opinion is not an educated one and I truly wish you could find it in your self to start reading about the entire issue, its not copy paste,
CAS/CCAS are not at all unlike the US, so called child protect agencies.
How much do you feel they should be given for adopting a child out? Should they profit. Its an incentive. its not unlike trafficking in children, I am a parent of adopted children. I am ashamed to say that publicly today.

This government is thinking about passing a Bill that has caused nothing but disaster in the States that have done so, with no watchdog, many States are now going back to family unification, and revising laws that have failed so many children. We should be learning from there mistakes, instead of wasting money and risking so much harm. The Child Protection crap is all based on the UN rights of the Child, read!! but we are not a third world country. We would be better off to be at this point.
And if we keep allowing so much spending to take place in Child protection, we will also be not only bankrupt financially but morally as well. False allegations, children being abused in care, are real issues, they are not a few mommy's that lost had a bad experience. Those mommy's are not posing as far as I can read on this blog. Speak to foster parents, they are not all happy. Its not warm and cuddly.For many its a way to makes ends meet, would you be surprised to learn one foster family is fired by one agency, and threats made to remove the families own children as well, and hired by another agency a few days later? That children in a foster home with a person that was charged and convicted of murder as a youth, yes true right here in Ontario. Not hearsay. A young women can have 5 children one after another, has no interest in even seeing the babies, just has them and walks away, yet CAS goes though the motions, and arranges visits, spends a great deal of money, for what? and the same agency tortures another family for home schooling, even though the parent has a teaching degree. Its about money , my dear not children.
some of us are trying to point that out. Unless you care to be part of the solution and care to share perhaps your letters written to the government on your concerns, what are you doing here. It is about child protection it is also about holding those that claim to be doing so, to a higher standered. Accountability , transparency, and to stop the dirty tricks in the name of child protection. Its should be scraped , it at least should have oversight by the ombudsman. I look forward to some enlightened information sharing, on your part. and hope you will take the time to educate your self on the issues, it just takes a few calls to a few family lawyers,that deal with CAS in your area, most I have found are willing to speak about the frustration they have with the agencies, its uneven playing field, others will tell you it is corrupt to the core.

Anonymous said...

Recycling children via adoption has not always been so popular: Prior to 1900, “the general trend . . . seemed to be to attempt to keep mother and child together” (Costigan 28). Even in the early twentieth century, “several states and municipalities passed laws attempting to prevent the separation of mothers and children, and requiring mothers to breastfeed their children for at least three months” (Costigan 30). With so many benefits, emotionally and physically, for the breastfeeding child, this arrangement still seems to be the one that is truly in the best interest of the child.

When the mental health industry became involved and social workers deemed themselves professionals, things began to change. Single pregnant women were called everything from "unwed" to “neurotic” to “feeble-minded” (Costigan 34). After World War II, with many servicemen returning home sterile, the pressure was on for young and single mothers to surrender their children to these wonderful veterans and their wives. The so-called nuclear family was celebrated on television and mothers who gave their baby to strangers to raise were deemed to have “greater opportunity for . . . further development.” (Costigan 36) Well, yes, but it is hard to say what a mother will develop into after she loses the child she’s carried inside her. I have interviewed many such mothers who were traumatized by the experience; the loss of their son or daughter to a stranger has affected their life negatively in many ways.

One thing about sin is that none of us can truly say we’re without it. Mental health, on the other hand, is a nebulous entity. Just ask the American Psychiatric Association, who, until homosexuals began protesting in the early 1970s, had declared homosexuality to be a disease. After 1973, the disease was erased--Now if we could only do that with cancer. The flexibility of mental health diagnoses is handy when you’ve got people storming into your convention, as homosexuals did the APA convention, and you can stop the protests by changing the disease to a non-disease; but it also allows us to condemn those whom we want to condemn and edify those we want to edify. In other words, yesterday’s nervous habit may become today’s ADHD which may become tomorrow’s schizophrenia. Today’s mother may become tomorrow’s non-mother. And who decides? People trained in Freud, Skinner, and all those other mental health monarchs.

Unfortunately for the family, the definition of parent and family has fallen under the whims of the mental health professionals. Social workers and media eager to help them began so successfully deeming people parents who weren’t that we began, in the latter part of the twentieth century, to refer to “parent” as a verb, as if everyday I wake up and decide whether or not I’ll be parenting my children today. In reality, parenting is done at conception. It is a transitory state of fatherhood and motherhood that the media have promoted to us that has helped to weaken our family structure. The truth is more lasting: Parents are created at natural conception and do not change throughout a child’s life.

In our brave new society, we refuse to believe such permanence. Parents are interchangeable; children are recyclable. If God does not bless us with a child, we cheat. We covet and take someone else’s eggs or their child or we sidestep God and go to a fertility doctor who can help us concoct the family we want, selecting for sex or other characteristics if we like. Children are no longer looked upon as a blessing, but as a right. If we are not blessed with any, we believe that we have every right to obtain one, by any means possible.

With such an atmosphere, it’s easy to see how natural parents began losing their value. My own father was not allowed to communicate with my mother while she was locked in her maternity home prison. It’s hard to be a good dad when you’re never allowed to see your child. But separation of the family, including allowing the father to wash his hands completely of the whole situation, and not listing him on the true birth certificate, was part of the plan. Having a father interfere with social workers’ supposed counseling of the mother by proposing marriage or talking with the mother would slow the supply of babies. According to Nathan Cohen’s Social Work and Social Problems, published in 1964, the demand for babies in my year of birth was already growing:

"Because there are many more married couples wanting to adopt newborn white babies than there are babies, it may almost be said that they, rather than out of wedlock babies, are a social problem. (Sometimes social workers in adoption agencies have facetiously suggested setting up social provisions for more 'baby breeding.')"

Add single people and homosexuals to the list and you’ve got an even higher demand for babies today. Babies are being imported from China, Russia, Guatamala, and other countries to fill the demand. Never fear, however, there’s a new idea that will help increase the supply of babies. Studies show that separation from our mother, even at birth, can have devastating effects on children. Soon, however, we may find that mothers are completely discarded. I first learned about artificial wombs when I read an article about them a couple of years ago. Now, we learn that artificial wombs are a mere twenty years away. These artificial wombs “would both expand the range of reproductive choices and make the differences between men and women matters of technological convention rather than biological nature.” Well, we wouldn’t want biological nature to interfere with technology, would we? (The New Atlantis)

With formula feeding, we manage to separate children from their mother after birth. With stranger adoption, we take children from their natural families and place them with families that aren’t their own, asking everyone to pretend that these children belong in those families. With embryo adoption, we separate children from their mother before birth, giving the woman who carries the child the extra benefit of being able to tell the child about the pregnancy. Is it any wonder that mothers ourselves and our most important function of giving birth may soon be deemed obsolete? Could it be that one day, potential moms may be asking, “Why take the risk of gestating my child in an old-fashioned womb?” (The New Atlantis)

The next time you become angry at a couple who claims to be “two mommies,” ask yourself how often you’ve capitulated to the rhetoric of this brave new world, how often you’ve called someone who’s never given birth and passed along genes a mother, or how often you’ve looked at an Asian child with two people who are clearly not her parents and believed that they are family. And then remember this scene from Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, describing a world in which babies are decanted, according to society’s demands:

When questioned about the word “parent,” “there was an uneasy silence. Several of the boys blushed” at what they had learned was smut. The Hatchery Directory helps them out: “The parents were the father and the mother,” [emphasis added] the director explained to the young boys, who had learned that family was as derogatory as any four-letter word our present-day mind can think of. ‘Mother,’ [the director] “repeatedly loudly . . . leaning back in his chair, ‘These,’ he said gravely, ‘are unpleasant facts; I know it. But then most historical facts are unpleasant’.”

In Huxley’s book, babies are decanted in a hatchery, not born to a mother. Mothers and fathers are part of an ugly past and embryos are conditioned to be in a certain caste for life. Mothers are not only unnecessary but looked upon as smut. Family is a dirty word. In the past half-century, we have been encouraging mothers to give their child away and we call the people who take the child "parents," when guardian would be an honest term.

Anonymous said...

The Ontario child-welfare system screams out for meaningful reform while the provincial government buries its head in the sand.

The previous post is right to suggest the system deserves to be scrapped.

Amanda, a little off topic but you previously mentioned you expected to meet with the Minister, Mary Anne Chambers. Did anything ever come of this?

Anonymous said...

The Ontario Government openly wishes to speed foster children into adoption despite the fact that most should be in the care of their own parents. How sick is this?

Jeffrey's Law said...

I was to meet with the Ombudsman but couldn't make the appointment. He's very busy and now so am I getting everything in my own life ready to move for five months, so I don't think it will happen unfortunately. I was also going to meet with Mary Anne Chambers, but when I found out she did NOT support the Ombudsman's request for authority to investigate C/ CAS's, I wrote her a polite but assertive letter, so I don't think she'll meet with me now. Christie wants to interview her after the sentencing which I hope happens!

Don't worry that Christie is in Italy, she said she would cover the case again when she returns. (there's nothing to do right now anyways) I'm 99.9% sure there will be an inquest into the CCAS's responsibility immediately following the verdict.