Program Supervisor
Ministry of Children & Youth Services
119 King Street West, 7th Floor
Suite 600
Hamilton ON L8P 4Y7
To whom it may concern
This is a letter explaining my situation and complaint with the Brant County Children’s Aid Society. The Society has been involved with my family on and off since July 1992 on assumption of alleged abuse on my children, poor parenting skills and too much stress.
In October 2002, a worker by the name of Donna Symes was assigned to my case, who since then has remained involved to this day even though I have no more children in my care since December 5, 2002. All of my children live in different homes. My youngest has been in foster care since that date, and is waiting for the courts to make her Crown Ward for the purpose of adoption. I was required by them to take parenting courses, group sessions, counseling and be seen by a psychiatrist for hopes that my children would return in my care. I followed through with each of their demands in order to be in good standing with the Society. Yet, it seems that my honesty and willingness to improve myself has caused much grief and pain to my family and to me. There have been accusations made against me that were untrue and overly exaggerated. For example, having high expectations of my children; punching them, which I never did because my approach to hot situations has always been to walk away; neglecting them, lack in parenting skills; failed to protect them; forcing my daughter to toilet train, which was never the case. My family life and my mental health haven been shattered which brought me to a depression and undo stress. This mental state was use against me and was told that I could not be a good parent. A parenting assessment was done in 2004 and so much information was untrue and distorted also. At that time, it was obvious to me that the doctor in question, seemed very bias on the whole situation and the recommendation was exactly what the worker wanted in the end.
I am presently expecting another child and I am being told, by this worker, that apprehension is very possible. There are many uncertainties on this at the present time. I am taking it one day at a time but still wonder what the agency will do. An alert has been place throughout Canada against me. So upon the delivery of this child, C.A.S. will be contacted and I will loose this child. She has stated that I can bond with the baby in the hospital and can nurse but to not expect the child to come home with me. In the last few weeks, Donna Symes was getting me to go to the office on a bi-weekly appointment. I have signed all the Form 14 required so that at the time of birth of this child, the Society can call the authorities involved in my life. I have been told that I need to continue counseling and see a psychiatrist, which I have no problem doing this even though I do feel that all is well with me. I was told to take, once again, a parenting course which if my memory serves me right, I have taken at least 4 of them to this date. She also told me that I would be re-assessed around the time of the birth of the new baby. I have no solid evidence of the outcome of my near future. I did tell Ms. Symes, why not let me take the baby home and have a worker at my home every day of the week if necessary even on Sunday. Her instant response to this was that this was not possible.
This worker, Donna Symes, has made many promises that she did not kept on more then one occasion. For example: Do what is required and your children will be returned to you; scheduled make – up visits with my daughter with no show from her part and no calls to cancel either. A few weeks ago she even told me that C.A.S. does not apprehend babies from the hospital and then stated differently. My doctor was upset that this woman was being dishonest with me and said that she should be telling me the truth.
I have often sought, in the pasts, the help of the Society, for help and advice. My children are my life and my world. All I want is a chance to prove that, but it seems that once again it’s impossible to prove anything to the Society when a worker is bias and seems to not follow what the Society really represents. I do understand that you are there to protect children but it’s also been my understanding that the Society is suppose to try to keep families together. It seems that this particular worker has been working very hard in keeping my family apart and continues to do so. I honestly believe that there is no reason for C.A.S. to be involved at this time or anytime in the future. But Ms. Donna Symes seems to think that she needs to be involved to be in control of the situation, which at this time there is no situation or anything else for that matter. How do I get the Society to stop being in my life and what damage is she trying to do or continue to do?
The only reason this worker knows of my pregnancy is because I’ve told her. In April 2005, I had to remove myself completely from the whole situation that surrounds me and moved to another province. At the time, it was something that was very much needed for my mental state. Removing myself away from all stressors that was surrounding me was the only thing I could think of doing at that time. I had nothing left to give to anyone including myself. I was so stressed out that I would break down at the least little thing. Before I left, I had my last visit with my daughter (April 7, 2005) who is in foster care as mentioned above. Upon my return to Ontario (Jan.16, 2006), I thought that being there still was nothing settled for her case, that maybe I could see my daughter again, so I called the worker. At that time, I told her about the pregnancy because I figured, if I was to see my girl, the Society would then notice my condition and so that I would not withhold any information, I voluntarily gave the info but now it’s causing me more grief once again.
I have found that over the years, there have been many contradictions with the Society. Some workers use to say that a spanking was ok but others would scold me for doing so. I am not talking about hard-core spanking; I’m referring to one or two spanking on the bottom with clothing. For one thing, how is a child suppose to be raise to respect and obey when we have no right to do anything to show them the right path? The Society and the Government has taken all of our parenting rights away and as we see the children now, we have children that are out of control and turning to a life of crime.
I’ve had workers in the past, wondered why they were involved with the family. They could not see what the problem was. So how can in so little time all of that has changed? I am not a monster as I have been made out to be and I want a chance to prove this but it seems to be impossible to do. I feel that I can’t breathe with C.A.S. constantly being involved and telling me what I can and cannot do. Yet I know that I have put into practice what I have been taught over the years. My biggest problem is that I’ve allowed to many people around me to tell me what to do and ended up feeling and believing that I was no good at anything especially in parenting. That is why I have often let others take over because I had no more self-esteem. If I’ such a bad parent, at it’s been perceived, then why do my older children keep telling me how good of a mom I am and all wish to be residing with me? I do admit that my choices of relationships were not healthy, even though it took me a while to see this, I did eventually take care of it. Unfortunately, not always when I should have. I get scared and it takes me some time to get this accomplished. I have a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to all whom cross my part. I’ve allowed people to abuse my kindness and it’s something that I do have to work at so that I may not repeat my previous mistakes.
On a final note, I wanted to say that I have read your beautiful brochure call “Working together to protect children”. I will say that it’s well put together. Unfortunately, not even 1/3 of it’s content was applied towards my case since Donna Symes go involved.
If you require any additional information from me, please feel free to contact me in any way that is convenient for you.
Sincerely,
Nathalie Gauthier
Brantford ON
nathalie19682000@hotmail.com
About Me
- Amanda
- My goal is to have all Children's Aid Societies held accountable for their actions when placing or removing a child. They are responsible for societies most innocent, vulnerable and important citizens and should not forget this when making decisions on children's behalf. They are playing god to these children with absolutely no one to question their actions or motives. It is past time that tax payers, parents, and citizens of Canadian society stand up against the 'Canadian Mofia' and say enough is enough. Thank you for visiting this blog! I welcome all comments, suggestions and news updates! jeffreys_law@hotmail.com
49 comments:
Amanda- this is precisely why so many people object to Minister Chambers actively working with a baby broker - Bill 210 can only bring more of these types of horror stories. They make it an impossible situation for the family, and they grab the child for their clients. It is totally corrupt, but this is what they have been doing for years now. It is evil all of it and more.
Brantford is undoubtably one of the worst Children's Aid Societies in the province. The Ministry is unlikely to do anything except make you seek satisfaction through the corrupt complaints procedure, beginning with Donna Symes, the very person you feel is abusing you. If you work your way through this process, you'll end up with Richard Carpenter chairing the board's complaint committee - here is an individual that found no problem with a social worker whose gross negligence was even acknowledged by the Ontario College of Social Workers - a do nothing body controlled by social workers that acts as little more than an apologist for CAS abuse. If you aren't satisfied with Carpenter you can then ask the Ministry to initiate a section 68 review - at least until Mary Anne Chambers removes that option under Bill 210.
Anyone facing a similar situation would be well advised to tell CAS nothing about your personal life and have as little contact with them as possible.
I believe the Hamilton ministry office is still headed by a man who a Hamilton area family holds personally responsible for ruining the life of a man who was maliciously abused by CAS several years ago.
why is it not possiable to provide sevices if needed in the mothers home?
Thats what Bill 210 says will happen I have the mins of the legisltoir and Minister Chambers on tape speaking about it. They do lie and twist and of course nothing you do or dont do pleases them you have come to there attettion and they want your children. How they can make claims on the unborn?? is beyond me call a criminal lawyer, some are listening and filing a class, against the abuse of power of the CAS, in your area, and others.
I have a problem with this situation.
Since this lady was allowed visitation with her daughter why did she drop out of her life for 9 months only to return and expect the visits to resume. Instead of focusing on yet another pregnancy she would have been wise to focus on the children in CAS care.
Poor relationships admitted? Well that is fine but as anyone knows this is a breeding ground for pedophiles. Moms with poor self esteem are often prey to pedophiles--in fact there was a pedophile in Ontario operating that way--single moms with low self esteem.
I sympathize with this mom but question what the other side would have to say about why her children were removed.
I question the child abduction society as now they are taking children before they are born? Please give me a break this is a repeat of what they have already gotten away with - it is a BUSINESS of finding babies and children for strangers that "want" them. Before Matthew Reid was murdered he was wanted by them as well.
This comment is interesting read it "Since this lady was allowed visitation with her daughter why did she drop out of her life for 9 months only to return and expect the visits to resume. Instead of focusing on yet another pregnancy she would have been wise to focus on the children in CAS care."
My response is this maybe the CAS DID NOT ALLOW HER TO SEE HER CHILD? And this blogger is mad at the mother for focusing on another pregnancy? Wow that says it all IT IS NORMAL TO FOCUS ON A PREGNANCY -she is a normal mother. But it is not normal to scrutinize her for that unless the poster cannot have a pregnancy and is waiting in the wings for someone else's baby. The true clients of the CAS are NOT CHILDREN THEY ARE THOSE THAT WANT OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN!
Read the article again. She did have visits with her daughter until she fled the province.
Here you have a "factory" producing children for the taxpayers of this province to support. She has made many mistakes, admittedly, but I still feel she should have focused on her children languishing in foster care as opposed to producing YET ANOTHER baby.
If she has children in foster homes common sense says the CAS will take the new baby away also. She would be far better fighting for her older children.
Do you have a problem with my suggestion that she focus on her children in foster care? Are they somewhat inferior to her unborn baby?
I am really at a loss to understand why Amanda posted this "story". I have no idea what is fact or fiction about it, and no soucing or citiation is provided for anything.
Once again, this is completely contradictory to what this blog is supposed to stand for - the memory of JEFFREY BALDWIN and CHILD PROTECTION.
This is not about helping "parents" who have abused their children (and keep bringing more into the world) get them back.
I guess I was mistaken about the purpose of this blog and in my view, putting this story up is offensive in the utmost to the memory of Jeffrey Baldwin and completely nonsensical.
It is obvious common sense and consitency in focus on the issue will not prevail. In the circumsntaces, I can see why the government will not have the time of day for your "views" on the issues affecting children. Who can figure them out?
The topic is completely in line with the blog's objectives. As Amanda has stated:
My goal is to have all Children's Aid Societies held accountable for their actions when placing or removing a child. They are responsible for societies most innocent, vulnerable and important citizens and should not forget this when making decisions on children's behalf. They are playing god to these children with absolutely no one to question their actions or motives. It is past time that taxpayers, parents, and citizens of Canadian society stand up against the 'Canadian Mafia' and say enough is enough.
Why does the writer, who states they have no idea what is fact or fiction, imply that the mom abused her children and should not get them back? Is there anything in the woman's account that remotely suggests she's abusive? One could only reach that conclusion by discounting what she has said while adopting a completely unquestioning attitude towards CAS .
Another post states this lady should devote all her energy to getting her children in CAS custody back. Did you miss the fact that this family has been involved with CAS for fourteen years. The damage has been done. There is no chance she will get them back - despite participating in several useless parenting courses and the desire of the children to be with her. Fourteen years pointlessly jumping through CAS hoops with no expectation of reuniting her family.
Another post (I'd be surprised if these were not all by the same person) states that it well known that mom's with poor self esteem are prey to pedophiles. That's quite a stretch when there is no reference to a situation of this type in the story. If you're looking for a breeding grounds for pedophiles, try foster care or other social agencies with CAS affinity such as Big Brothers. Look at their operational practices and you will find that pedophiles could not have written better guidelines for abuse.
This mom dealt with an inhuman situation for fourteen years. If she removed herself for nine months, it is utterly bogus to hold this against her. The woman also raises several examples of CAS dishonestly working against her family - statements that you ignore completely. Before having anything to say about baby factories you should reference other posts on this site that deal with CAS' motives in targeting pre-borns for the purposes of adoption.
Wrong again! I posted about this lady should have focused on her children who were in foster care. I did not however write the other article you are referring to. Nice try.
It might surprise you to know that many hold this same opinion. Just because you have a few agreeing with you (assuming there is such a thing) does not mean too much. It merely means you may be in the same boat together.
There was a pedophile who was recently sent to Jail (I cannot remember his name)...He openly admitted his mode operendi was single moms with limited income and poor self esteem. He befriended the children with gifts etc and then warmed up to mom offering to babysit etc. That is when his evil deeds began.
Don't deny the obvious.
Would an abusive parent be stupid enough to admit it?
This blog has been sabotaged by some who have had experiences with CAS. They offer nothing constructive. Do you really expect others to take your cause to those in power when only one side is presented? How fair is that? Both sides would have to be heard--unfortunately CAS will never divulge that kind of info. Imagine if a case was presented to the media by CAS--you would be the first to start a lawsuit. It would be a case of "he said she said." The only ones who would know the crux of the case would be those who know you well and are not biased (not family members.)
Many of these cases leave me wondering....where was Matthew Reids grandma when he was taken into foster care? Why did she not report his sexual abuse to THE POLICE? The questions are too numerous .....none of the extended families are there when the children need help. This makes me very suspicious.
Obviously you know nothing about fairness listening to only one side.
TO THE BABY BROKER THAT POSTED THIS FOLLOWING COMMENT SCREW OFF - you will NOT WIN!
Would an abusive parent be stupid enough to admit it?
This blog has been sabotaged by some who have had experiences with CAS. They offer nothing constructive. Do you really expect others to take your cause to those in power when only one side is presented? How fair is that? Both sides would have to be heard--unfortunately CAS will never divulge that kind of info. Imagine if a case was presented to the media by CAS--you would be the first to start a lawsuit. It would be a case of "he said she said." The only ones who would know the crux of the case would be those who know you well and are not biased (not family members.)
Many of these cases leave me wondering....where was Matthew Reids grandma when he was taken into foster care? Why did she not report his sexual abuse to THE POLICE? The questions are too numerous .....none of the extended families are there when the children need help. This makes me very suspicious.
Obviously you know nothing about fairness listening to only one side.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006 6:09:18 PM
What is fairness baby broker - making normal families the so called fake enemies aand arming those that "sell' children to strangers "human"?
Those who sell children to strangers are "evil". But the Minister is in bed with them after all. One day the truth will be told
- about a system that sold and "sells" children to the highest bidder in a putrid market where normal families are the enemy and infertile strangers with money "safe".
WHAT IS FAIR BABY BROKER FROM HELL - not supporting families in crisis and selling them to rich people in Richmond Hill? What a reply eh? Yes freak creature all natural families are the "enemy" and all rich, infertile people are "safe".
Yes baby brokers from hell and evil parasites are trying to take this blob over - those who "profit" from NOT HELPING REAL FAMILIES are a huge industry. Minister Chambers is in bed with these vile creatures.
The pro-CAS poster does have a lot in common with CAS employees in that he/she cannot respond to a statement directly and refuses to answer direct questions.
Let me illustrate what a direct answer is for your benefit. You asked where Matthew Reid's grandmother was before his death in foster care? The answer is she was making futile appeals to CAS and the Minister with her concerns.
Why didn't she contact the police?
Suspicion of child abuse is investigated by CAS. Removing a child from risk is CAS' responsiblity. There's no chance of police independently intervening in a CAS matter.
Now it's your turn. If you're still suggesting the posts that so closely resemble your own come from different people, perhaps they can help you. I do not believe you, as an individual that demonstrates such bias would have no trouble lying when their assumptions are challenged. In any case:
Why do you think it's appropriate to question the actions of Matthew Reid's grandmother when a child was killed in CAS custody? Are you suggesting you don't believe that Matthew was abused in the months preceding his death (remember the grandmother's letters to the Minister). Did you know any of this information before taking such cheap shots?
Let's try a few more:
What relation do your statements about pedophiles have to do with the story you're commenting on?
If preying on women with low self esteem is a common practice among pedophiles why can you provide only one unsupported example? I'd really like to read the source of your information - another poster on this site wildly misrepresented the story of a girl who left her house in winter in order to smear her parents. Given your interest if fairness, I'm sure you would not want that to happen again.
Why do you presume this lady has anything to admit to at all? Although you insist that both sides must be listened to, you're really quite incapable of doing so yourself. For you to state,"you know nothing about fairness listening to only one side" is the height of absurdity.
Why do you believe a women whose family has been involved with CAS for fourteen years has any expectation of having her children returned?
Why do you content that CAS abuse is a he said/she said affair. This site alone contains numerous articles from neutral sources (and even authorities)that clearly show the extent of CAS abuse. Individual parents have also posted thousands of affidavits on the internet containing irrefutable evidence that CAS engages in malicious court actions, gross negligence, perjury, cover-ups - you name it. Cases like Jeffrey Baldwin and Matthew Reid (two of thousands)independently cry out for the system to be brought to account. There are flaming red flags everywhere - regardless of your thoughts on the matter.
On what basis do you state that the extended families are never there when children need help?
Until you provide convincing answers to these questions, you will be regarded as nothing more than a buffoon. Nonetheless, I hope you will keep posting. You discredit CAS more every time you open your mouth. A CAS wannabe with your twisted values will leaves no doubt where the truth lies.
Obviously the truth is above you. I doubt very much if you know Matthew Reid's family or any other family whose story is posted. If it is on the internet it must be true....right? Your limited intelligence is constantly rearing it's ugly head.
Perhaps you had a bad experience with CAS. I didnt nor do I know anyone personally who did. I am aware of other info involving CAS cases which I refuse to divulge to you.
I refuse to advise you of my knowledge of CAS cases as you would only take the info and accuse me of being (in your words) a SW with CAS, a liar or something else derogatory. My knowledge is not something someone told me, wrote on the blog or heard on TV--this is first hand information.
Too bad you are not smart enough to avoid cutting off your nose to spite your face--assuming you know what that means.
Go stick your head in the sand--you will learn a lot that way.
To the CAS Wannabe,
Your last post is a classic. Like I said, a buffoon that's incapable of responding to a direct statement or question. Your own words make that point more forcefully than I ever could. Secret information that you refuse to divulge? - that's as lame as it gets. The truth is you simply ignore anything that shows how misguided you are - straight out of CAS' playbook - except that you're even loonier than they are - a CAS wannabe at best. Your words say it all - they are there for everyone to see. How ironic you'd accuse anyone of cutting off their nose to spite their face. This would all be very funny if you weren't so pathetic.
Let's see. This person has had no experience with CAS and doesn't know know anyone that has. Their "knowledge" comes from no one else, information on the blog or the media. Yet it's first hand.
What this person is saying is that they make it up themself. Better to ignore any fact that gets in the way of their fantasy.
Thanks for the clarification. You're completely nuts.
As I said in very clear english: I have not had any first hand experience with CAS nor do I know anyone who has. What this means is CAS has not paid a visit to me or any of my associates in the name of protecting children.
My knowledge comes from first hand
experience from the other side. I am not employed by CAS in any way shape or form.
If you were not so narrow minded you might figure it out.
Get a life.
This is not a game where one "wins" or "loses".
If it were you clearly lost some time ago. This has left you a very bitter narrow-minded negative thinking individual (s).
Another waste of breath.
I'm afraid you have been figured out.
Whether your occupation is A,B or C, the issue is your consistent refusal to acknowledge overwhelming evidence against CAS, in favour of posting outlandish and unsupported opinions. That's the very definition of narrow-mindedness.
As previously stated, you will only be regarded as a buffoon until you respond directly to statements and questions regarding the content of your posts. Clearly, you're incapable of doing so.
To the poster that wants to praise the CAS, that hates natural families and that wants to disregard the plight of those fighting to gain their precious children back then why are you on this blog? Start your own blog to support the CAS - you will find no others joining you I suspect other then baby brokers, the CAS workers themselves and those hunting down other people's children. I don't understand why someone like you is posting on a blog to make the CAS accountable. Gee- aren't they a wonderful group - Jeffrey was given to sadistic and cruel child abusers, Matthew Reid was molested in foster care and murdered, Douglas Moore a deceased murderer and pedophile abused foster kids in Peel region and on and on it goes. Such lovely homes they find for children, such a wonderful system that the child abcution society has in their "forever families" of child abuse.
This person claims the knowledge behind their negative opinions comes from no one else and believes their word carries more authority than hundreds of others that have commented - including the ombudsman, politicians and so on.
In terms of negativity their words are in a class of their own - utterly hateful. Who are they to accuse those with informed opinion of being negative. That this person may have something to do with caring for kids is really quite scary.
Because one does not support incompetent parents does that mean they are a fan of CAS?
I think not! Nowhere on this post have I read support for CAS.
Get your facts straight....one does not have to support so-called CAS victims nor CAS.
This blog was never meant to assist incompetent parents charades.
Reading these many posts one can conclude one thing.
Many of these posts condemn foster parents. This would, I assume, include the loving foster home provided to Jeffrey's siblings for 3 years.
It is not much wonder foster homes are in short supply. This in turn could/did lead to poor foster homes taking in children. Foster care is here to stay-like it or leave it.
Besides the burden of taking in damaged children, foster parents also deal with the bureacracy of CAS. As if that isnt enough they are condemned and hated by those who have had their children taken away.
Perhaps good foster homes would be more readily available if it were not for your hatred.
Think about it.
The last poster has got to be kidding. These foster parents with 5 kids make $50,000 annually tax free just for room and board. They get one weekend a month respite care and 2 weeks vacation. Dear, it is all about money.
I would never become a foster parent because it would make me complicit in a barbaric system that removes undamaged children from their families and inflicts severe and permanent emotional trauma.
I have no problem with foster parents being paid--it is a full-time job.
Families are disrupted in order to care for someone else's children. Many many many children arrive damaged. Don't deny it. There are many kids who have witnessed things their young eyes should never have seen. And don't make that frivolous suggestion that we throw the money at the natural moms. That won't work either.
The sooner you get over the fact that some parents are incompetent the better.
A job is a job is a job. If one provides a good loving home to strangers kids does society really care?
Obviously your tactics are not working--nobody (including politicians) is listening. Negative, derogatory comments fired at foster parents offers nothing constructive. Your next post is obvious--I must be a foster parent--wrong!! There isn't anything rewarding in that and NO amount of money would entice me into it.
I presume by your posts you deny that Jeffrey's siblings were in a good foster home. I also presume that you deny these same siblings arrived "normal". They were lucky (one sibling in particular) to come out of their criminal grandparents home alive. Emotional abuse is just as bad. I have read all about Jeffrey's case and can only conclude his siblings will suffer for the rest of their lives.
Nothing could b further from the truth.
The longer you deny these problems exist the further you bury yourself in a hole.
The issue is not that you don't support incompetent parents but that you twist and ignore information at will in order to create the perception of incompetent parents. Your comments regarding Matthew Reid's grandmother, to name only one example are sick.
Like it or not, your values are clearly in line with those of CAS. When challenged, you cannot respond - better to ignore the truth, launch your next unsupported slur and hope something sticks.
Facts revealling the truth about CAS and how it really operates are all over this blog. You consistently ignore them, the better to express your hatred of parents.
Because you've been exposed and discredited, you're trying to backtrack. Sorry, it won't work. If you had any problem with CAS abuse, you would most certainly support victims of their heinous misconduct. Yet, you refer to these very people as "so called victims" involved in "incompetent parent charades." Your true position is obvious and completely supportive of CAS.
That brings us to your latest ruse where you rhetorically assume that posters alleged condemnation of foster parents includes Jeffrey Baldwin's loving caregiver Karen. This is as phony as it gets - if you can produce one negative comment about this lady on this site, please post it.
One reason that readers were universally complimentary to Karen (a fact you ignore and twist with your assumption) is that she was treated exactly like parents you label incompetent. Perhaps you remember these kids were removed by CAS for a completely appropriate response when confronted by unruly behaviour. The question for you - was Karen incompetent? Was she unjustly treated by having these children removed? Do you consider parents who report identical situations incompetent?
The vast majority of posts you claim condemn foster parents are newspaper articles that deal with real cases of abuse. As you might gather is you were not so willfully blind, is that it's endemic to the system. Trying to misrepresent readers' attitudes towards Karen and throw it into the mix to suggest they have an irrational hatred of foster homes does not cut it. Again, you're exposed.
Then you make the ludicrous statement that the shortage of foster homes stems from the fact people hate them. The truth is, this shortage results from the explosion in unwarrented CAS apprehensions. Proprietors of what you call "poor" foster homes are motivated by the opportunity to increase their income. The point you miss completely, is there little true need for any foster homes given the pretexts used to remove children from their families.
As for damaged children, the emotional turmoil imposed on them when they are removed is inhuman and increases disproportionately as they are shuffled from home to home.
It's interesting that you support paying stangers in a system where physical, emotional and sexual abuse is common but say nothing about financial assistance to parents.
Society should certainly care about the damage done by foster care. Study after study confirms the societal effects of such devastation. If you are looking for those who hate the system, read what those who've been placed in it have to say.
This person forgets the posts condeming foster homes involve scumbags that prey on children. It's crazy to defend these slugs by dismissing readers concerns as something motivated by hatred. Do you have any concerns with CAS for placing children in their care? Why haven't you expressed them. If you did express them, would that mean you were motivated by hatred of foster homes? Like thousands of family members before her,Matthew Reid's grandmother complained of abuse and was ignored.
The poster even tried to suggest that she was somehow irresponsible. How about CAS splitting Jeffrey's siblings into three different foster homes? Any problems with that? This person tries to fit everything into their own limited view of hostility. Whose head is in the sand?
The writer has shown they'll go to any length to portray parents as incompetent and abusive, even if that takes wildly distorting the facts. What is this person's problem?
No one listening? Did you miss the CHTV program where the host commented that if even a fraction of the stories regarding CAS are true, the system is in serious need of reform. That show also featured André Marin, Ontario's ombusdsman and one of the most respected public figures in the province, demanding CAS accountability. That position was also taken by the politician who joined him and two guests the following evening. The Globe did a series of articles critical of CAS. There are regular items in the news and CAS is currently under investigation in several provinces.
In the US, some states have dramatically reduced CAS' role or cut them out almost entirely. The less role CAS plays, the more incidents of so-called child abuse drop. Anyone who claims no one is listening has a personal agenda that does not include honesty or fairness for reasons known only to themselves.
Backtracking is a good word. The CAS poster previously stated all CAS files should be opened to show the REAL reasons children are abducted, meaning parents were abusive and CAS was acting in good faith. Now she tries to distance herself from those comments by claiming she doesn't support CAS. What's worse than her defending pedophiles are her statement about what should society care if strangers provide a "loving" home to other people's kids. Wake up duffus! Other people's kids are part of other people's families. They are not reimbursement units (a job is a job is a job) for a corrupt system that destroys lives. The person who said you hated families was absolutely right.
Has it crossed your mind that if the majority of society supported your cause the CAS wouldnt exist? Perhaps you should reconsider your methods if you want support. Most would write you off as bitter with a chip on your shoulder.
You are a small fish in a big pond.
When one criticizes foster homes with comments such as "they do it only for the money" "they only want someone elses kids" "they are in bed with CAS" etc etc one is left to assume Karen also fits the bill. You have constantly criticized foster parents.
Who exactly is backpeddaling?
One thing that is very interesting is that when Amanda doesnt agree with you you don't dare go on attack. Why is that I wonder?
Perhaps you fear losing what you perceive to be support for your tainted cause.
God you're insane. Has it crossed your mind that you haven't answered a single question? If you had, you might realize how nuts you are. So much easier to avoid the truth and proceed to your next slur.
Now you're grasping at straws. Your statement that if the majority of society supported your cause CAS wouldn't exist shows you know nothing of history, politics, culture or vested interests. If you lived in another time, you'd defend slavery, Hitler, interning the Japanese or witch hunts. No doubt, you see nothing wrong with residential schools or training schools - both still part of this mix. After all, if people didn't support them, such disgraces would never have occurred. Through your insane eyes those who oppose such abuse are involved in a tainted cause.
You also have the remarkable ability to blindly accuse others of having the same ugly qualities you demonstrate. Chip on the shoulder? Fits you to a T. Why don't you answer the questions you keep avoiding. Explain how objecting to the pedophiles that you support is motivated by anything but ethics. Who is backpeddling - clearly you are. Even you must realize you went too far over the line by permanently labelling yourself as a defender of pedophiles.
As for losing support? The next network television shows dealing with CAS abuse in Ontario are Focus Ontario and W5.
Your reference to Amanda is simply absurd and has meaning only to you. Please provide one example where this has occurred.
At your stage of insanity, you lead yourself. This is an excellent lesson for others about the type of nutbars that support CAS.
You are either sick or you don't comprehend what you read.
Nowhere in any of my posts do I support CAS or pedophiles. Such a statement is laughable.
Worth noting however is I do not support baby factories with the tax payers footing the bill. I also do not support abusive parents, addicted parents or unfit parents. No messy houses do not fit in there UNLESS there are other issues also.
I think if I took a poll most of the general public would agree. Hard working people are sick of supporting baby factories. That is why governments who are in favour of welfare reform are elected time and time again. Believe it or not MANY single parents WORK--you know that dreaded 4 letter word.!
It is beyond me how blind you are. CAS will exist as long as unfit parents do.
There are very few exceptions to this--there may be some CAS involvement where they do't belong but this is extremely limited.
Here is a prime example of why the CAS is so dangerous that they are hunting down an unborn child without giving the mother a chance what so ever is precisely what they have done in the past, that it still happens today is haunting and truly scary. They have a "client" waiting for this baby - if that is not evil then what is? Does this poor unborn baby wish to be a cashcow for the CAS, or this vulnerable mother a human incubator for their putrid industry?
The poster that hates families is on here to promote the CAS which is quite obvious. They should join the CAS as that is their "mantra".
To the family hater that said "Has it crossed your mind that if the majority of society supported your cause the CAS wouldnt exist?"
Has it CROSSED YOUR MIND THAT IF THE PUBLIC KNEW THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CAS THAT THESE AGENCIES WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO OPERATE AS THEY DO. Has it crossed your mind that if the public even knew half of the horror stories that there would be even more outrage and a demand for our tax dollars to stop this abuse of power? You are a strange bird really - how can you be on a blog complaining about supporting families and single mothers yet you support the CAS having no responsible oversight yet we are funding them over 1.7 bil a year? I am glad that this blog exists and Dufferin VOCA as it is high time for tax payers to know the truth of what is going on instead of the lies and farce of the CAS agencies of Ontario and elsewhere!
One of the nice things about blogs is that they're read in sequential order. You have hung yourself with your own words.
As stated previously, if you had any problem with CAS, you would most certainly support victims of their heinous misconduct. Evidence of serious systemic abuse, including newspaper articles, is found throughout this site. Instead, you continue to characterize parents as abusive, baby factories, drug addicts, etc.
Your true position is obvious and completely supportive of CAS, even though the facts don't support you. In keeping with your inability to deal with questions or statements that show how misguided you are, you choose to engage in a semantic game that would not fool children - nowhere do your posts state support for CAS - but every word you write endorses the evil they engage in.
Now, you want to disassociate yourself from comments supporting pedophile foster homes. Let's give you a chance to do that right now. Do you agree that posts dealing with pedophiles employed by CAS confirm how dangerous the foster care system is to children - that the pedophile foster homes are abusive and unfit? Do you agree the system causes incredible devastation to children and their families? Are these people monsters? These are simple questions - yes or no answers will do. While you're at it, do you deny objecting to posts revealling abuse in foster homes and posting comments in support of the very system that allows these pedophiles power over other people's children?
Another contradiction you may wish to make note of is your statement you do not support "baby factories" with the taxpayers footing the bill, when that's exactly what you do? The cost of CAS removing children from loving families is several billion dollars in Ontario alone every year You also undermine your case by stating many single parents work - a fact which clearly diminishes any burden on the state. To characterize people on welfare as baby factories is utterly ludicrous as there are numerous reasons that people are in need. That's just your irrational hatred of single moms rearing its ugly head once again.
I am a hard working person sick of supporting CAS. Reading the posts on this blog can you provide any support for your statement that they should be involved in almost every case they take on? And while you're at it, try to square that circle with your statement that you don't support CAS.
Still waiting for answers!
No one on this blog have posted a single word in support of abusive parents.
There is no point trying to have a debate with someone who is so intellectually handicapped.
You only read into my statements what you want to.
As I said it is not about single parents--many work very hard outside of the home.
And if you believe for one minute the public is unaware of CAS and the many issues you are wrong. How many times over the past decades have these stories been printed--the public have become immune to it. The last inquiry involving CAS was on the news etc daily. Have you ever taken the AM subway and looked around at how many people are buried in the newspaper?
You might believe you are exposing the CAS for the first time but you are wrong. Jeffreys case will likely be swept under the rug with the gov't boasting about Bill 210 preventing future Jeffrey cases.
What is it about this you do not get. You can criticize me all you like. I believe I am more informed than you can ever hope to be.
As for answering your many repitious questions--read my previous posts the answers are there.
Perhaps you could get someone else to read and explain them to you.
Informed? Hardly. Insane? Definitely.
I have asked three others to read and explain your comments - all three concluded you were nuts.
Yes, the answers are all there - hates families, defends pedophiles, loved CAS.
Cindy Silver, do a search,
Children's Aid Society following their orders
Dave Brown
The Ottawa Citizen
When child protectors took a five-day-old baby from his mother, who has cerebral palsy, they created opportunities.
Their actions Friday showed beyond a doubt: there has to be a better way.
There's opportunity here to defend the protectors. They tend to become demonized in these cases. They are simply following orders that are, in fact, legislation that we, as a society, have made to protect children. These orders, however, are the strongest and most intrusive laws ever drawn by any civilization; with special courts in which burden of proof or rules of evidence are unnecessary.
Now, the protectors are told, don't ever allow another child to be harmed, and God help you if you fail.
At some point in this latest case, the protectors were alerted to a possible problem. A decision had to be made. Would this newborn be safe with a mother in a wheelchair with limited hand and arm control? How could promises of support from members of mother's church be factored in? Would the unemployed but able-bodied father be able to pick up the slack? What would be in the best interests of the child?
If the protectors know more than has been revealed so far, they can't say so. As the case develops, concerns beyond the mother's disability may be put on the table. The seemingly harsh action could be right.
Meanwhile, the safe play, as always, is to let a court decide. So the baby was taken into care, a euphemism for custody.
The moment that decision was made, lawyers became involved. The paperwork started piling up, and it will become known as the "trial record." Less and less mention will be made of the child as the trial progresses. Lawyers will say things like: "If your honour will turn to the trial record, book two, tab 28, section c, paragraph two ..."
During this, the court will order assessments of the parents. Persons, who for court purposes are "expert witnesses," will prepare reports. They are people who claim, through credentials from schools of psychology or psychiatry, to be able to predict human behaviour.
The judge will be under the same pressure as the protectors. If he or she returns the child to the parents and the child is hurt, accidentally or otherwise, there will be public outrage.
The safe play? Base decisions on the reports of the mind-readers.
In a way, that takes us back to where we were 300 years ago. Witch hunters were not bad people. They believed in witches. They were trained by clergy in methods of detecting them. The Salem judge who condemned some 20 people to death wasn't a bad man. He listened to the experts, thought to himself that this was some kind of spooky science, but he wasn't going to risk the lives of children because of his lack of knowledge in that field.
One week ago, I sat in an Ottawa courtroom in a different child protection case and watched a psychiatrist go through eight hours of tough cross examination by lawyer Wendy Rogers. The psychiatrist's report recommends the children in question be made Crown wards and be taken into state care. His recommendations throughout his report are based on "observations."
He admitted those observations were, for the most part, made by child protection workers and relayed to him. He defended this type of secondhand observing with a baffling statement. "Accuracy is not as important as continuity."
That trial is stalled because Ms. Rogers wants to cross-examine the apprehending caseworker, Dianna Payne, who is on extended bereavement leave following the death of her mother a few days into the trial. Meanwhile, three sisters aged seven to 10 remain separated from each other, uncertain and in custody, where they've been for three years. The children's lawyer, Lynn Keller, is on record as saying: "I represent three children who want to go home."
Monday, I sat in another family court and listened to lawyer Frank Armitage complain about the same inability to get another apprehending caseworker into the witness box. The social worker, Peggy Couture, is on extended sick leave and although Mr. Armitage was on the opening day of a five-week trial, he could not get details of the illness, or a promise the witness would be available before trial's end.
Children's Aid Society lawyers are now protecting the best interests of their client. The client is the CAS.
In the cerebral palsy case, we, as a society, make stupid use of financial resources. We will spend half a million dollars (a conservative estimate) grinding the parents through court processes that will take years. We will pay foster parents to care for the child, and protection workers to monitor visits by the parents. Should the foster parents become stressed, we will provide respite care.
For a fraction of the cost, we could send help to the home and keep a family together. But that's not built into the protection system. There is no Parents' Aid Society.
We should pay attention to a slogan favoured by Hillary Clinton. "It takes a village to raise a child."
Here's an idea from a woman with three children in diapers: Where does she sign up to volunteer to spend one day a week for three years with the disabled mother? If somebody will handle the co-ordination, she's sure there would be more than enough volunteer moms to help get this baby on his feet.
Such a co-ordinator would not be able to meet screening standards set by our child-protection system. Should the CAS do it? That's not part of the mandate.
Hawaii has reduced incidents of child abuse and neglect by 99 per cent by putting moms into the protection system. The program is called Healthy Start, and is based on the fact the persons most likely to first spot a child at risk will be the hospital staff present at its birth. If they report a problem, the system sends in not social workers, lawyers and shrinks, but a proven mother who has raised good children. For those most important first three years, she becomes almost part of the family.
In Ontario, there are more than 50 child-protection agencies, and each is autonomous. They are "arm's-length" agencies, which means they have little oversight and almost no accountability.
Regional Councillor Alex Munter has long been a proponent of allowing Ontario's ombudsman to provide that oversight. The province's recently appointed ombudsman, former judge and police complaints commissioner Clare Lewis, says he's open to the idea. It would require only tinkering with existing legislation.
Meanwhile, each individual agency is mandated to enforce a set of laws called the Child and Family Services Act. By definition, they are police departments --without controls.
Dave Brown is the Citizen's senior editor. His e-mail address is dbrown@thecitizen.southam.ca .
Read previous Dave Brown columns at www.ottawacitizen.com
Post a Comment