Search This Blog

Search This Blog

Search This Blog

Translate

Google+ Followers

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Jeffrey's case
If any 'good' comes from Jeffrey Baldwin's death it will be from the inquest called by Ontario's chief coronerBy MARK BONOKOSKI
The Grandparents Grimm -- custodial monsters Elva Bottineau and Norman Kidman -- will appear in court again May 17 to learn how long the jailer's key will be thrown away before they can apply for the unthinkable prospect of parole following their convictions for second-degree murder.
Their barbarism has been well documented in recent days, of course, despite words falling short of fully describing what is surely indescribable for even the best of writers.
When their 5-year-old grandson, Jeffrey Baldwin, died from the brutality and starvation they had inflicted upon him, for example, his weight was that of a 10-month-old baby -- his years, according to Ontario Justice David Watt, "eked out" in the "miserable existence" of a locked room described as a "dungeon" that was cold, urine-soaked and coated with the filth of human feces.
There is no mind's-eye picture that could possibly conjure the reality of that scenario -- unless, God forbid, a photograph of the poor boy's wasted corpse was able to flash on some screen in the psyche of us all.
Until then, it must hopefully remain unimaginable.
INQUEST IS NEEDED
If there is any good that can come from this horror, and the word "good" is used because of the lack of any other, it is that Ontario's chief coroner, Dr. Barry McLellan, has ordered an inquest into young Jeffrey's death -- with the focus clearly centred on the Catholic Children's Aid Society.
And rightly so.
For it was that agency -- a taxpayer-funded, social safety-net of guardianship -- that handed the boy over to his eventual killers when a simple background check would have uncovered a high degree of child abuse in that family.
In 1998, when Jeffrey's own parents were being investigated for child abuse, and he and his siblings were seized, the CCAS never opposed Bottineau's bid for legal custody of her daughter's children -- meaning they never checked their files to learn that, as a teenage mother, Bottineau herself was convicted of assault causing bodily harm in the 1970 pneumonia death of her first child, Eva, who was also found to have suffered multiple fractures.
And then there was Bottineau's husband, Norman Kidman, whose documented history has him convicted of the extreme beatings of two of Bottineau's children from a previous marriage -- another record easily accessed by the CCAS.
Yet into those abusive arms young Jeffrey Baldwin was tossed, as well as three other siblings.
Following the trial, Paul Dimitriadis -- husband of Jeffrey's paternal grandmother, Susan -- minced no words when it came to the CCAS which, according to reports, backed Bottineau and Kidman in barring the two from even visiting their grandchildren ... a visit which, in retrospect, might have led to young Jeffrey being rescued from their clutches.
But this was never to happen.
CASTLE WALLS
"I believe the Catholic Children's Aid Society lives in a big castle with high walls," he said. "And when they come out, they are guarded by pit bull terriers called lawyers, who are ready to tear anyone apart (who) try to question them."
And he, in many ways, is not far from being wrong.
Not a week goes by that I do not get one or two e-mails, and just as many calls, from a parent or a grandparent with what they see as critical concerns regarding one children's aid society or another -- concerns they want to see go public.
And this is where the "high walls" come into play. Privacy laws not only prevent names from being used, they are also used as a shield by all CAS to deflect, not only comment, but often even acknowledgement of the case in question.
And this is a dilemma for those in the news business who, after time, often find it easier to walk away from a potential story than face the inevitable dead end of the agency invoking privacy laws as a convenient and effective way to legally cover ass until the story goes away.
And it could have even happened here in the Jeffrey Baldwin case, if not for the chief coroner calling an inquest.
While the vast majority of CAS cases are undoubtedly well handled, the few that are not demand scrutiny.
Perhaps the upcoming inquest into Jeffrey Baldwin's death will find a way to address that concern as an important sidebar issue in the juggling act between privacy and protection.
While it may seem small in the greater scheme of the unfathomable picture of the horror that brought the Grandparents Grimm to trial, what of the case I wrote about a month ago about the Cobourg father who discovered -- through a third party, not the CAS -- that the man living with his ex-wife and their 7-year-old daughter was also the man written up in the local newspaper as being sentenced to "house arrest" for sexually assaulting his teenage stepdaughter's best friend?
Facts being facts, it would seem a simple task to get his daughter out of harm's way.
Surely the Children's Aid would see absurdity in these living arrangements, as well as the inherent danger of a 7-year-old little girl having an admitted sex offender as an authority figure.
But that is not the way it played out.
SEXUAL ASSAULT
In fact, the Children's Aid refused to acknowledge that the man in the newspaper convicted of the sexual assault on a teen was the same man now living with his ex-wife and therefore sharing the joint custody of his little girl.
"All I am asking is for one of two things to happen," the girl's father told me back then. "Either give me full custody of my daughter, or get him out of that house."
Neither has happened.
Today, his daughter is still living under the same roof as that convicted sex offender, but it is no longer in Cobourg.
They have packed up and moved because they have supposedly "found God," and the only church where that "God" can be found is apparently nowhere else but Peterborough.
Perhaps the children's aid there will find this odd.
But, then again, likely not.

210 comments:

1 – 200 of 210   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Oh I get it. The CAS won't do anything to get that little girl away from the sex-offender stepfather because they have nothing to gain. They cannot adopt her out so there is no money to be made in this situation.
The CAS is a useless agency. Let's do away with it. I don't want my tax dollars going to them anymore!!!!

Anonymous said...

Very cogent analysis - except for the statement that the majority of CAS agencies are administered well - nothing could be further from the truth. I was also impressed with statements made by Jeffrey's paternal grandfather. He pegged CAS perfectly.

Anonymous said...

The vast majority of CAS cases go smoothly, ???????????
who wrote this statement, nothing could be further from the truth.

CAS and all Child protection agencies, benefit ONLY the adults in the business and the fridges of the business, please do some research, its not difficult to find. The very people that have come out of the agencies wrote the Acts in the US that we use in this Canada, and the so called safe adoption acts, have said its a total failure.
Child protection, is about money. Huge employer that cost us all billons a year. Social workers are not trained investigators, nor are doctors teacher, or any of the other mandated reporters. Psychology which so much of child maltreatment and neglect is built upon is NOT SCIENCE, nor is it evidenced based money, the catchy term used now to teach medicine( its cost saving for the medical establishment) but tell me how can anything really be evidenced based medicine, doctors are not scientist, they are not taught that no species is MORE dislike then the human, even the identical twin.

Tell us about the vast majority of cases the CAS has gotten correctly? ask the children ask the Crown Wards now out of care. ask the literally thousands upon thousands of families, that have been torn apart, investigated for nothing, ask the aboriginals, the family court lawyers, the doctors, the judges after the retire, and many before, the politician are all aware it is not about child protection, but the have created a monster, and this monster needs children to stay a float. And it needed a case like Jeffery's Baldwin's to get Bill 210 passed, and make more money.

There are not thousands of Jeffery's being hidden in houses across the country, this family was evil. And CCAS knew that, missing files , not check files, this old excuse is as bad as the dog peed on my home work to a grade two teacher.

The grandparents sat in case confences with the CCAS, REALLY telling, if they could not figure out this family dangerous, how do we expect them to figure out which ones are NOT.
The media is doing child an families a major dis services by not doing the many story's they could be doing, by not educating and doing research on what child protection is truly about, and supporting them, what will they have to say in 20 years from now, they will not be able to claim we did not know, that they hide behind the so called secrecy walls the agencies have built, to protect the so called child, they put the same so called child childs picture up on the web when they place them for adoption, and can never say they were wrong, never return a child when nothing is found, the more innocent the family the harder they fight, WHY because they of liability.

But no one is accountable,

This inquiry will do nothing more, then say what we already know they are NOW doing checking back ground, and because of Jeffery many normal loving families will be treated like criminals, and more children will spend time in care.
Care is a very dangerous place, how many children die in care every year?
No one speaks of the three year old that was murdered in care in Dec 2005. why???

Did they get it right that time, NO.
I am sure his mother and grandmother don't feel they did either. Nor would the parents of the teen that also was in care that has been accused of killing him. Why was she placed in a foster home and left alone with the three year old, she just arrived the night before, where was the foster parents. Who made the call that this teenage girl was now well enough to be taken from a mental health facility and placed in a home, with a toddler. The social workers and psychologist. Why are they not held accountable?
Two people in that home died that day in so called care.How many lives are forever changed because of it?
Why does the media ignore it?????

What have the other inquiry's told us from the past. For As Long As any One Can Remember Child Protection has Been Done in Secrecy, the Grove inquiry,and Nothing has Change that was over a decade ago.
If indeed, child protection was what its suppose to be doing, why the need for the high profile legal teams, remember they also have the deepest pockets, we fund them.
Why does the CCAS use the same legal team and have them sit on there board of directors that the Mafia uses. This is not a guess look it up.
Why so many legal teams on the boards of directors why the members of the police force, in Hamilton even the doctor that run the Child abuse team at the hospital that has NEVER found a child in need of protection. Why this very same so called team of experts, when the CAS after harassing a mother for many years, finally closed it files returned her children, recommended the mother now say she is Catholic so they could have the CCAS remove her children for so called on going services, the doctor sits on the CCAS board, why does the media not look into this, its a conflict of interest and a bold one to say the least.

There are so many questions, if the agencies have nothing to be concerned about then why do the fight tooth and nail for no oversight.
They lied to the media about the special needs children. They lied in courts.
Why are perjury charges not lied?
The complaints process is still very internal, why does this government not want to change it, all but the NDP.
They have allowed it to go on for so long that the lawsuits would bankrupt us all. This so called Child protection agency has NEVER done the right thing by a child. It has harmed millions. Do some research, and find the guts to report the truth.

Anonymous said...

I should never try and write and talk on the phone at the same time sorry. The Child abuse team has NEVER found a child NOT in the Need of protection, the parents are ALWAYS guilty, and other grammar and spelling errors, but I have done my home work, and do not have a vested interest, other then we all have a moral obligation to children and their families as good citizens, we should be demanding accountability. Not until everyone can be held accountable for the errors made, will we see less mistakes, less children die in care, better placements when truly needed, and more prevention of real child abuse.

Less families torn needlessly apart, and children not harmed by needless apprehensions and others truly helped and heard in cases of real abuse.

This
will not happen ,until there is true accountably,for anyone involved with children.

Anonymous said...

To the last poster, right on!

Anonymous said...

Just mailed in my petition 2,284 signatures,from just the west end of Hamilton, and the hospitals, a few schools, and legal offices. A couple of Judges I thank,
its is truly amazing how many people feel the child protection agencies are out of control.How many nurses, doctors, teachers, all feel CAS should have ombudsman's oversight to say the least. Many wrote comments.
The story's I heard have shocked me, this is coming from NOT the family's involved either. There story's break your heart. There has to be change.
There needs to be a inquiry into all the agencies.

Anonymous said...

Whoever said this "Less families torn needlessly apart, and children not harmed by needless apprehensions and others truly helped and heard in cases of real abuse."

I think this says it all. No one ever wants to see a child tortured like Jeffrey Baldwin. He was a beautiful little boy who was sent to a massacre by the CCAS.

Anonymous said...

Whoever said this "Less families torn needlessly apart, and children not harmed by needless apprehensions and others truly helped and heard in cases of real abuse."

I completely agree. The system causes unbelievable damage. Those who serve it have no credibility. Those who are affected would not trust a CAS social worker to help their child across the street.

Anonymous said...

That makes at least two large petitions from centres outside Toronto.

My question is whether anyone is collecting signatures in Toronto itself?

If anyone in the GTA is interested, why not follow the poster's example or locate in a high pedestrian traffic area and give this a try. Every little bit helps.

Perhaps the person that collected the signatures could post the copy they used as a template for consideration. If you hand out any information beyond collecting signatures, it might be an idea to include the address of this or other websites dealing with CAS issues.

anonymous said...

I'm assuming that all of these comments are coming from people who have not had the opportunity to take a glimpse into the daily events that occur within the CAS's? There is a lot of good out there and these people who are working in the societies are not evil, as some would like to believe. I do agree that they were in the wrong when it came to the Kidman/Baldwin family, however you cannot portray these socities in such a way as to assume that everything they do is evil. Would you honestly believe that the CAS is a useless agency? Then I would like to ask you if you would be the person who would manage all of the children in this province who are at the hands of parents that lack the capacity to parent their children in such a way as to not protect them from violence, drug abuse, alcoholism, sexual abuse, etc. Would you? These are the things that the societies' social workers face. They are trying to do the best that they can by these kids - they (the society in which is mostly comprised of social workers) are not evil people, and if you believe that doing away with them (the societies)would be beneficial then I would hate to think how many more innocent lives would be lost at the hands of unfit parents.

Anonymous said...

To the last poster...I don't believe that all CAS are evil or that all of the people working for them (social workers) are evil but the system cannot stay the way it currently is. There should be accountability and oversight. If the CAS really cared about what was best for the children then they would welcome Ombudsman oversight. Any help that is offered should be accepted. The Ombudsman oversight will help to identify where problems exist and then these problems can be addressed and corrected. What is wrong with that? Why are the CAS's fighting against having any oversight?!

Anonymous said...

I agree entirely with the last poster. I also point out that it appears CASs only want to put out the positive propaganda without revealing, and being liable for, the negative things they do. The problem is that when negiative results occur due to CAS bungling, the effects are disasterous and liablity can be huge. That is why CASs strongly resist oversight, criticism, reform and change, because all of that would remove the protective shroud of secrecy that makes them almost immune from liability, be it civil or criminal.

We who are fighting for reform wish to see transparent accountability from the child protection agents, until that day comes, the system will be viewed very negatively, wiht good reason.

CASs need to give up their old secret ways, which it appears is very difficult for them to do. However, the times they are a changing...

Anonymous said...

To the last poster absolutely well said. The entire child welfare system is based on secrecy and lies. And it does not impress anyone out there that the only people actively fighting against the Ombudsman having oversight is the CAS themselves? Do they really think the public is that stupid? Think again - what type of people and agencies do not want accountability? The police have more oversight then the CAS in Canada. It is shocking.

The days of abuse of power must end with those agencies. They need to start helping families and stop ripping them apart.

I met a foster mother a few years ago who was fostering a baby. She said the CAS was trying to help this mother to be a better parent? How in the hell can a mother be a better parent when they barely have access to their own child, and strangers are with a baby that is crying continually for THEIR MOTHER?

No one is disputing the fact that cases of abuse exist, but that is a very different scenario then abusing one's power to the degree in which the CAS has abused there power.

And no one I would think is going to trust agencies that are actively fighting against any oversight? Come on, give me a break.

Anonymous said...

When you have abused your power to such a sweeping degree no it is not just saying to people trust us?

If they want trust then start being responsible, and start with having the Ombudsman have oversight.

Anonymous said...

To the social worker, have you read what's wrong with children's rights, have you read, manufactured victims.
Have you read the Ministry and your own society's , July 2005 Child Welfare in Ontario Developing a Collective Intervention Model, where even the Ministers office states, to many apprehensions, but not because of the harmful effect on children or families, but because of the cost.
That parents are not essential to child protection issues!!!

I know several social workers and psychologist that work in child protection, my best fried does in fact,and is NOT happy with what has happened , CAS is no longer doing social work, that implies social skills and services to help families, its about if in doubt take the child and get out, then the creativity begins, the twisted allegations, the psychobabble, the games in courts,
Its time for change, I hope some of the subjections made in the July 2005
are truly where society's are heading, my concern is that change will not come till its forced by public revolt, and NO ONE posting on this site condones child abuse, but it needs to be better defined, and risk of harm is everything and anything today, the mandated reporters feel abused by the system. many signed petitions, its not all rosy, and its not a few bad apples, its a system that needs to stop trying to regulate society, allow parents to parent, stop micro managing everything they do.
Tell me are the Crown Wards happy?
Does anyone really believe that children will be at less of a risk in adopted families?
Foster parents are not all happy, they have had the games and dirty tricks applied to them as well.

If CAS was not aware this has become a huge problem that society sees it work as more harmful to children, they would not be hiring public relations experts.
Once there is accountably, oversight, and liability for everyone involved, once the agencies, take responsibility for the damage they can and do cause to families, families that are not abusive or neglectful,will there be some respect, Children are always safer with a parent, you all know this, so only remove them if you have to, your reason speak volumes, there are social problems, alcoholics, well Sandy is a social worker and a parent and has fallen ff the wagon again, but her husband is fine, if Sandy was not a social worker, for CAS I know that the baby would have been long gone after the police came twice, called by god knows who because she scream and is not all that happy with her life, and it becomes apparent when she is drunk.
Job stress perhaps? and No I don't think Sandy's children should be taken away, they love her, and she not a terrible parent, not the best either,and could use some support in getting back into treatment , or hitting AA , but as her friend I also understand she will have to come to that decision, till then her husband is carrying a bigger load at times. Would you remove Sandy's children, you bet in a flash.
But she even knew to beg the police not to report the calls, how she works for CAS intake.
Violence in the school yards is appalling why do you not insist it stops, Violence on TV, I don't let my children watch, why not try and change it as well, many parents are trying.
poverty, is this a reason to remove children? its sad indeed, do the poor love there children less,

Have you ever given a thought to how resilient children will be if you NEED to protect them from every thing in life, that's not always rosy, but indeed its part of life and parents manage to parent though crisis quite well on there own,in most cases. Until the CAS comes calling. And what makes a parent capable? your opinions your risk assessment tolls the CAP test that is so bad it cant tell you anything at all. Its based of psychology a field few trust given the huge oops and high cost to human lives in not so distant past.
All my social worker friends have the same stuff in their book shelves, more self help books then chapters, and then oh ya Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Mantance, and Dibs in search of self.
men are from Venus, crap, they don't think. well not all of them anyway. Every person I know that has gone into the field comes from a troubled past, perhaps taking the frustrations out from there own childhoods on today's parents, or so it seems.
What child abuse has become is an industry and an ever growing one, child abuse it also now almost everything, including ADHD?
please.

CAS has lost all respect because you have not earned it.
You have instilled fear into far to many peoples lives, over powered, and no accountability, perhaps you should think as well what this looks like from the outside.
And help children by helping their parents if they really need to be helped.
Till then no one cares really how over worked underfunded ( like hell) and dangerous your jobs are.
A five year old apprehended from school is more of a concern to many of us, we can relate to how that child may feel, better then the adult that took the child. We can understand the grieff of the family the high cost, the never ending games.
Look into the eyes of the next child you apprehend, and really see who is causing the harm, unless that child is being beaten,the public really does not care. A child was murdered in care, where was the agency? Jeffery the socity had case confrences with his murders, do we trust the agencys judgment? No. and I dont think thats going to change, and for that I do have concerns.

Many of us do.

Anonymous said...

There are some good workers in the CAS, and some good things that they do as well. It needs reform though.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the poster--the CAS does do a lot of good. Yes they screw up and yes they should have Ombudsman oversight.

I have seen these unfit parents he/she is referrring to . I have seen them show up for visits stoned on whatever. I have seen the anger these unfit parents have towards CAS all the while not recognizing the real problem is themselves.

I agree we need CAS in some form. We cannot leave these children with their addicted parents to look after. We cannot leave these children with moms who feel a night on the town dancing is more important than their baby. We cannot leave these children with the mentally ill --parents who cannot possibly be held responsible if something should happen to their children.

I cannot imagine our country without some form of CAS--overhauled and accountable though. Children, some of our most vulnerable must be protected. These posters make out foster care to be very poor--I have seen the difference. I have seen many loving caring foster parents do a job I wouldnt do for money. So you think they do it for the money? WHY DONT YOU DO IT YOURSELF??? My home would pass with glowing colours but there is no way I want the job. It may seem simple but foster parents are accountable to many--the parents included who are constantly looking for extremely minor issues.

In a perfect world competent relatives would step forward but that is often not the case. Most have been down that road with the parents and have given up.

I could care less how these bloggers portray me--the truth hurts. Maybe some of them might even fit one of the scenarios above.

The sooner one faces reality the better.

Anonymous said...

CAS routinely exposes children to
violence, drug abuse, alcoholism, sexual abuse, etc at far greater rates that dwarf such abuse in the general population. Jeffrey Baldwin is merely one example. Please spare us the self-serving propoganda. The system is administered by morons that ruthlessly destroy lives by the thousands and refuse to be held unaccountable. It's vital that readers research these issues independently before accepting such drivel. Agencies with a sincere interest in the well-being of children would not act remotely as CAS does.

Anonymous said...

The person that said CAS employees have "issues" is a master of understatement. Those I've met have more baggage than an airport. Putting such idiots into a system where they are protected and given power is a recipe for disaster. I can understand how some would enter this field naively but to remain in it you'd have to be utterly sick.

Anonymous said...

The poster that has such a rose coloured view of child-welfare agencies might want to read this article - one of the many thousands involving unthinkable abuse engaged in by the social workers she applauds.

Anyone else will recognize that a system populated by individuals like those mentioned in this story is insane and needs to be scrapped.

Sally Schofield thought that little Logan Marr was “a demon prone to fits of rage.” But Schofield, 41, of Chelsea, Maine, an experienced and “strong-willed caseworker,” also thought that she knew what was wrong with the 5-year-old: Attachment Disorder.
She killed the girl while practicing AT techniques, philosophy and principles she had picked up second-hand as a state foster-care caseworker.
Schofield had had clients who had to deal with the same things that Logan, her foster daughter, was putting her through. Those clients had been taught parenting techniques and interventions, allegedly dealing with Attachment Disorder, prepared by Daniel Hughes, a prominent Attachment Therapy (AT) practitioner, author, and consultant to the State Deparment of Human Services. Schofield remembered what she had seen those clients do with their children and decided to deal with Logan in the same way.
It was a fatal mistake.
AT parenting techniques target disobedience, not lack of attachment, and especially don’t treat any real problems that reside in the relationship between parent and child. In the case of the relationship between Schofield and Logan, apparently a troubled one almost from the beginning, AT techniques led to continuous warfare between the two. At one point, Schofield told a babysitter that the issue between child and parent was about “who was in charge.”
AT parenting insists that mothers win all battles over control. As evidence later presented at trial shows that Schofield would “get frustrated” and “dig in” when things didn’t go her way. For her part, Logan decided that she didn’t like Schofield, and would complain about her to her birth mother when they visited. (Those visits, by contrast, were calm and sedate affairs). By the visitation rules, the birth mother was not allowed to respond to, or even to acknowledge, the child’s complaints.
Logan also reacted to her treatment by throwing tantrums. Schofield would then escalate with even more AT parenting. One of the techniques used was putting the 5-year-old into a baby’s high chair. Logan wouldn’t sit still for it. On 31 January 2001, Logan was especially loud in resisting the high-chair treatment. She and the chair were moved to the basement. The tantrum continued. According to the judge who tried the case, “Logan’s defiance infuriated Sally Schofield to the point that she secured Logan to the high chair by wrapping layers of duct tape around Logan’s torso and behind the back of the chair to prevent her getting out.” That left Logan with only one outlet to express her displeasure. “To silence her screams, [Schofield] wrapped more duct tape under her chin, over her head and across her mouth…then [she] left Logan to struggle against her bonds in isolation” in the basement.

When Schofield later checked on Logan—by some accounts more than an hour later—the girl was dead. Medical examiners concluded she had suffocated. Before calling for emergency services, Schofield removed the duct tape and hid it. Police investigators later found 40 feet of it—with tufts of Logan’s hair still stuck to it.
Facing a charge of depraved indifference murder, which carries a sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment, Schofield and her lawyers sought out any exculpatory explanation: blame-the-child (“she bound herself in duct tape”), undetected medical problems (“some fluke cardiac thing”), a seizure, and—in line with AT advocates around the country—the birth mother.
The judge trying the case without a jury rejected all of these defenses. He called the self-wrapping “as preposterous as it is incredible.” There was no credible evidence supporting the cardiac or the seizure notions. And he agreed with the prosecutor’s angry rebuttal that “Christy Marr had nothing to do with duct-taping that child in the basement.” He ultimately sided with the prosecution’s conclusion that Logan had been asphyxiated as a result of Schofield’s conduct.
The judge didn’t agree with the prosecution’s murder charge, however, and convicted Schofield of manslaughter instead. She was “unquestionably reckless,” in her treatment of Logan, especially at the last. As an experienced caseworker, he said, she knew better. He sentenced her to 20 years in prison, where she is today. The sentence, in the mid-range for manslaughter, satisfied the prosecution, who saw no basis for leniency. “I haven’t seen one iota of acceptance or responsibility on the part of that woman,” declared the lead prosecutor after the original verdict.
The usual AT tactic of vilifying the birth mother backfired in this case. As more public attention was drawn to the case, first statewide in Maine, then nationally it became increasingly apparent that Logan may have been wrongfully taken from Christy Marr (whose surname now is Reposta). While the shifting public attention from Schofield’s conduct to DHS’s conduct helped to lower AT’s profile in the case, at the same time it served to undermine the “Attachment Disorder” diagnosis for Logan’s behavior, which rests on an assumption of bad treatment by a birth mother.
Though she never abused or neglected her two daughters, she had them taken away by the state for failing to keep away from Christy’s own mother.
The actual reasons given for taking away the children was Reposta’s alleged “failure to protect” them from possible child abusers, including Reposta’s own mother. Ironically, Reposta believes it was her mother that made the initial reports that brought the family to the DHS’s attention.
Reposta’s relationship with her mother had always been stormy. Even so, it was difficult for her to obey completely the DHS’s requirement that the family not have any contact with her mother. As it became more difficult for the young mother to make ends meet, it was especially hard to be cut off from her only outside support—her mother. It was only a matter of time, then, that she would run afoul of the state’s dictates. DHS eventually found out about the transgressions and they moved quickly to take the children.
The state was also determined to go much further. Not only did it put the children into foster care, but it wanted to terminate Reposta’s parental rights and put the children up for adoption. It was arranged for Schofield to adopt them as soon as they were available.
It was this institutional eagerness to terminate parental rights, even in a case where neglect or abuse was not an issue, which caused a public sensation, first statewide in Maine, then nationally. One critic characterized the DHS’s attitude as “take the children and run.”
Whatever the merits of DHS’s decision in the case, the resulting controversy underscored the vacuity of one of AT’s prime tenets: that all foster (and adopted) children are Attachment Disordered as a result of the bad treatment received at the hands of birth mothers. Logan’s alleged behavior had all the characteristics of AD that AT advocates point to, but her history belied that diagnosis.
Logan may have been a troublesome child to her foster mother, but it was not because of mal-attachment. If anything, it appears that she might have been “parentified” — a condition where a child feels she has to take on adult responsibilities — which confused and scared her. Yet she was treated as if she had Attachment Disorder, which would only reinforce the child’s parentification judgment. The outcome was tragic, all the more so because it was avoidable.
There is one understated aspect to this case. The State of Maine (or at least its DHS) officially recognizes the diagnosis of Attachment Disorder, despite the fact that there is no reputable professional recognition of it. In the wake of Logan Marr’s death, and of the public revelations of her treatment by Sally Schofield, the state has partially disclaimed the use of Holding Therapy (which is AT by another name) and the use of restraints on children. Nevertheless, it still endorses Attachment Therapy (by that name) and makes referrals to Attachment Therapists if asked. As mentioned above, it has employed a leading AT advocate, Daniel Hughes, as a consultant.

Anonymous said...

About a decade ago, there was an Ontario inquest into the deaths of seven children in CAS custody. Some of these children were killed by being physically restrained, suffocated and sat on. The government's solution - give CAS more money.

Anonymous said...

I agree without some form of protection many many more children would be at risk. CAS needs accountability and sweeping changes.

Those that advocate abolishing CAS are foolish. There are far too many incompetent parents out there. Many of them have their children in care.

To deny this is so is just another form of manipulation....something incompetent parents are very good at. To deny the harm these parents can cause to their children is to deny drug addiction exists.

Some foster homes are not great but I wouldnt paint them all with the same brush. There are some that are nothing short of amazing.

To constantly criticize CAS and foster homes etc accomplishes nothing. It makes you look bitter and readers might question your motive.

After all if one did not have run- ins with CAS how would they know so much and why would they hate them to such a degree?

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget the 36 Toronto CCAS employees involved in distributing pornography. As one poster suggested, it's little wonder they had so little time for Jeffrey.

Anonymous said...

Manipulation and incompetence - words that go to the very heart of CAS.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if this poster thinks the thousands of children who have spoken of incredible abuse they experienced in CAS custody are manipulative. These stories include being forced to take drugs, being sexually abused, being threatened rather than helped by CAS, etc.

Anonymous said...

Sherri Charlie was killed in the home of a CAS employee.

Anonymous said...

A CAS volunteer put a man unfairly through hell based on her suspicion that he sexually abused his son. Ironically, this woman was convicted of sexually abusing children herself shortly after.

Anonymous said...

Sheri Charlie was killed by HER UNCLE!!!!!!!! Whether he was paid by the native welfare agency that placed her there (NOT CAS) I dont know.

Her 19 year old mother who is pregnant with her 3rd child TOLD the inquest she IS STILL BATTLING alcohol addiction. This is recently.

Tell me people...do you not see something wrong with this picture????????

Most members of society would.

Oh goody another fetal alcohol syndrome baby coming into care--another theft from the taxpayers. It is quite simple--you give up booze or you take birth control.

Anonymous said...

No I believe some children have been mistreated while in care.

I also believe there are mothers whose children are in care who lie and some even coerce their children in the process. There are mothers who severely damage their children by telling them things that are untrue and involve the children in a tug-of-war with some decent foster homes.

Anonymous said...

I guess many don't read, take a look at the CAS last conference July 2005, and Read and try and understand, that we now live in a new world order, read what's wrong with children's rights, and no for the most part the people posting here are people who are professionals and advocates for people that have dealt with the CAS,

No one is saying ALL parents are great, your missing the point.

Children and family's and the CAS NEED to learn to work on solutions as a team, or the cycle will continue. it really doesn't matter we are all going to blow up and die soon any way. But until that day, and until we all suffer in misery from the toxic loads we carry around, and are children have been abused with, thanks to the governments lack of foresight, and lack of precautionary principal, who has really caused children so much harm, it was not parents I am surprised babies today are even born at all.
But till then perhaps, CAS and the like could learn from the past, and actually do some social work. And NOT PLAY god or godess.

Anonymous said...

I have never proposed that CAS is doing a wonderful job--they are not otherwise this site dedicated to Jeffrey and his suffering would not exist.

And yes I believe there are some horrific foster homs--both in the past and the present. There are adults who today are suffering as a result of spending time in some foster homes. There are also sucess stories.

BUT there are also children and adults who have/and are still being mistreated by their parents. If you look into the history of many adults who are now in mental health units and wonder why....all you have to do is look at their families. They are a total mess and sometimes the ones in the mental health units are the "normal" part of the family. Ask any doctor or nurse that works with these patients....these patients often did not have normal childhoods. I am not talking about untidy homes or homes with little disposable income but children who are physically, emotionally and sometimes sexually abused by their families. As horrific and unbelievable as it sounds it does happen. Some of these cases go unreported.

I dont have the solution but I sure hope someone does at a not too distant future. These adults could become the Paul Bernardos of tomorrow. He came from anything but a normal home.


I am hardly talking about "great" parents but people who should never have had children to start with.

Perhaps more good foster homes would be available if not for the bureacracy involved as well as many other issues. For some there is no amount of money that would entice them into it.

I would find nothing more gratifying than helping a child like Jeffrey's sister. But with all that went on in that house I would be afraid amongst other things. I often think of her and wonder what her life is like.

I pray that she is in an excellent home --her siblings too but mostly her. What does the future hold for these children? Not much. They have seen too much with their innocent eyes. How can a 9 year old survive having witnessed what the eldest sister did?. She was guilt ridden at the first foster home and I fear life will not be too promising for her.

I pray these children break the statistics and find happiness.

Anonymous said...

I have no doubt that the CCAS needs to be held accountable for it's contribution to the horrific life that Jeffrey had and yes, I am sure there are some social workers within the agency who should not be social workers, however there are many, many social workers within these agencies that are really trying their best to provide what is right for these children in care (remember, they are human). The social workers in the agencies carry case loads of about 25 - 30 kids each. Therefore, that would be like having 25 - 30 kids of your own - making sure they attend doctor's appointments, get good grades in school, attend meetings with the foster parents, providing money for them to buy clothing, get their hair done and I could go on further.....and a lot of these kids in care are suffering from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, crack/cocaine babies, etc. The people of Ontario should be trying to support the CAS's in order for them to be able to grow as an agency and help them to prevent a Jeffrey Baldwin case from happening again. This is not something that has been taken lightly within the agencies - it has actually lowered the moral of its employees and they are completely guilt-ridden even thought they had no direct contact with this case. These people have children of their own and are completely devastated to see something like this happen.

The government has now put in place regulations for all CAS's to follow regarding back ground checks, however due to the privacy act of Ontario, this also puts limitations on the information accessible.

I am not saying that the agencies are a shinging, wonderful place for kids to be, however in some cases it would be -(compared to the life they would have had remaining with their birth parents). All I am saying is that there needs to be a child protection agency for these children that are born to unfit parents, or a place a parent can call for help if their child is becoming uncontrollable for them or a medical condition the child has (eg: ADD/ADHD) is unmanageable for them or their child is getting in trouble with the law or they are financially stressed, etc (and there are a lot of cases where children are in the care of the CAS for these reasons). Instead of bashing these agencies and stating that they are the "Mafia" (which is a joke within itself), provide some support to an overstressed, underfunded agency and help them to become a safe place for children to be when all other options are not suitable.

There is a lot of good that comes out of these agencies. I know of some youths that have gone on to attend college/university (which the agencies pay for) and have contributed to society in a positive way - not all stories from the CAS's children are horrific - and I hope people could veer away from their tunnel vision and help these agencies to improve in such ways as to prevent any future tragedies.

Anonymous said...

It is quite fascinating for the CAS poster to talk about moral. Do they think that the crown wards have moral? Do they think that those adopted have moral? Is it NORMAL TO BE SEVERED FROM YOUR FAMILY?

The system is not normal, but yes we do need protection for children if they are being abused, without lies, dishonesty, and corruption.

Is expecting abused children to call stranger foster people "mommy" and "daddy" normal? Is it normal to live with total strangers and pretend that they are your family in adoption?

Stop lying CAS, return to nature, and stand up to the victims.

It reminds me of the movie a Few Good Men - you can't handle the truth.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if this poster thinks the thousands of children who have spoken of incredible abuse they experienced in CAS custody are manipulative. These stories include being forced to take drugs, being sexually abused, being threatened rather than helped by CAS, etc.

A good point - to the above poster, and when things get rough with the CAS they run and hide. It has always been this way.

But it is never them, somehow when the people who were in system question it they are dishonest? How convenient.

Anonymous said...

BUT there are also children and adults who have/and are still being mistreated by their parents. If you look into the history of many adults who are now in mental health units and wonder why....all you have to do is look at their families. They are a total mess and sometimes the ones in the mental health units are the "normal" part of the family. Ask any doctor or nurse that works with these patients....these patients often did not have normal childhoods. I am not talking about untidy homes or homes with little disposable income but children who are physically, emotionally and sometimes sexually abused by their families. As horrific and unbelievable as it sounds it does happen. Some of these cases go unreported.


Reply - yes as horrific as it is there are cases of abuse in normal families, but let us not pretend that foster families or adoptive families are any better? Interesting as do you know how many people have had to go to mental health services because their lives are not normal - they are not normal as the CAS shredding families apart are not normal. Is it normal to be in various foster homes? Is it normal to be raised with strangers who pretend to be your family? I don't think so. The "norm" is not being raised by either the government, or strangers. Return to nature.

Anonymous said...

To the person talking about the mother who is an alcoholic - gee maybe she can go to a baby broker from hell, and have her child sold to strangers as a solution. Has anyone ever thought about helping people to overcome addiction without selling their children for $10,000 a head?

Anonymous said...

This will be therapy to the CCAS for the silbings of Jeffrey - bury the past, change your identity, live with strangers, be happy and grateful, and never be allowed to speak the truth. Adoption will cure all won't it? God help them if they are abused again like their older brother was.

Anonymous said...

Yes let's talk about moral shall we - why is the government in bed with a broker? How much are you for sale?

Anonymous said...

Personally I would think that the would wish to distance themselves at once from the brokers.

Anonymous said...

I also believe there are mothers whose children are in care who lie and some even coerce their children in the process. There are mothers who severely damage their children by telling them things that are untrue and involve the children in a tug-of-war with some decent foster homes.

QUITE a fascinating post that this person has said. When the infertile strangers take over your child the real mother protesting is the enemy? NO - I think that having a stranger telling children that they are their mother or father is coercion and not the other way around? Nature does not lie, but the system does.

Anonymous said...

I have no idea of who is in argument about children's rights but whoever they are I think they missed the boat here - children have the right to be with their families. Strangers do not have the right to take others children for their own gain.

Jeffrey's family (not the one's involved) should be able to see him.

Anonymous said...

Remember we have collected over 5,500 sigs, from doctors nurses, hospital social workers, in 2 cities, one in only a small affluent area, all stating
agreeing with the below statement, one has been presented, already, the other should be next week, and still going strong. I am shocked by the stories from the medical community they are NOT fans of the child protection agencies, nor are the teacher, they see this system doing more harm then good. Its time to really listen to the people, of this province after all we are whom they represent. So yes we have spoken to doctors social workers nurses, lawyers, judges, parents, there needs to be change, this petition has yet to reach the family's that have had involvement , but it will be interesting to see what they have to say. The mandated reporters are not happy. They report they feel more harm is done to the child and family.


PETITION



TO The Legislative Assembly of Ontario:


WHEREAS The Child and Family Services Act of 1999 has been misused to
apprehend large numbers of Canadian children; it is financially onerous to
the people of Ontario;



WHEREAS the current legislation gives CAS workers more power than any
policeman, physician or judge, the rights of Canadian children are routinely trampled in the name of "child protection";


WHEREAS the funding of this agency is piecework based, it is financially rewarded for each file opened and each child apprehended;

WHEREAS to insure accountability and transparency, we need to have the Ontario Ombudsman have oversight over Bill C210

We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to open up the process to public scrutiny to ensure a level playing field, and ensure a proper judicial review with proper representation.

Name (Please Print) City Signature



________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Name (Please Print) City Signature

Anonymous said...

Lets not forget Between a Rock and a hard place. The agencys lied in court.

Anonymous said...

War Against Child Abuse
Richard Wexler
New Revised Paperback Edition
Every year hundreds of children die, thousands more are forced to live with strangers, and countless American families are torn apart. This is called a "child protection system." While the problem of child abuse is serious and real, journalist Richard Wexler charges that our solutions to the problem have actually made it worse - in fact, they hurt the very children they were intended to help.

Wexler reinforces his arguments with horrifying descriptions of children summarily removed from their homes, families shattered because of false reports, and children - whose parents are guilty of nothing more than poverty of being thrust into the maelstrom of the chaotic foster-care programme. He writes of severely abused children - those needing the most help - whose cases are ignored because the system diverts scarce resources to trivial or unfounded cases, some are re-injured, sometimes fatally, after their plight has been called to the attention of the authorities.

The culmination of fifteen years of research, Wounded Innocents illustrates how well-meaning efforts to help children have gone terribly wrong and how the current child-protection system desperately needs to be replaced with one that offers real help and hope to abused and neglected children. Wexler has added a powerful new chapter especially for this edition which updates the latest developments and tragedies in the child protection system.

Richard Wexler (Coropolis. PA), a professor of communications at Penn State University, has won more than two dozen journalism awards. He has been a reporter, producer, and/or news director for the Albany Times Union, Wisconsin Public Radio, WGBY Public Television in Springfield, MA and for City Newspaper in Rochester, NY.

Anonymous said...

Okay for the "brilliant poster" who suggested the foster children not call the foster parents mommy and daddy.

How about this scenario....what about 2 disabled brothers raised in foster care since they were new born. They are now 8 and have remained in the same loving caring foster home. The natural mother has flown the coop shortly after giving birth. She had no interest in seeing these boys right from the get go. These are one of 7 children she has given birth to. And remember the key word here is "severely disabled". This natural mom cannot even look after her own needs let alone these disabled children.

Would you suggest these children call the foster parents Mr and mrs Smith? Talk about confusing for the children. Furthermore one of these children does not even speak and how much he understands remains a mystery. Shall we tell the least disabled boy about his elusive mother at this tender young age when he is having enough problems comprehending the basic learning skills of a boy his age? Accademically he is far behind--remember "disabled". Obviously when he is older he will be told. His foster parents have children of their own so don't even suggest the word infertile. Without these foster parents these childrn would have bounced from foster home to foster home.

This scenario is playing out in a neighborhood near you. This entire situation is true. It is not what someone told me or what I read in a book by someone trying to make a fast buck--I have first hand knowledge of this situation.

If you deny this story is true you are the one who remains ignorant. Sometimes the natural parents are unfit....this is one of the cases.

Anonymous said...

Though funding is often difficult to get and maintain for prevention efforts, ``that's where the emphasis needs to be,'' he said.

The move opens up some $95 million in federal funds for prevention efforts such as emergency aid to financially struggling families, home visits by social workers to help teach parenting skills, and after-school-recreation programs.

State officials are working to determine just how much money might be diverted, but they said thousands of children could potentially be saved from entering foster care. There are currently about 19,000 children in Michigan's child-welfare system.

Much of the effort will be targeted at families at risk for neglect, including those already involved in government cash-assistance or food programs. Neglect, which accounts for 70 percent of the child-welfare cases in Michigan, is closely tied to poverty.

``The goal is to devote resources earlier, with the goal of strengthening families,'' said Marianne Udow, director of the Michigan Department of Human Services, who emphasized the dire impact of economic deprivation on families. Parents might need something as simple as a new refrigerator to provide healthy food, for instance.

``In most cases, these parents want to be good parents, but they don't always know where to go for services,'' Udow said.

The state already has identified two demonstration projects in Wayne County, Michigan's largest county, for the funding shift. But it's looking for proposals from three other large counties to establish the effort there.

March 2007 is probably the earliest money would be shifted, said Jim Hennessey, DHS deputy director of children's services. The plan is to roll out the program statewide in stages over the next year.

Four other states -- California, Florida, Tennessee and Iowa -- also received federal approval to use foster-care money for other programs.

By providing services such as recreation programs and intensive family-specific supports, the idea is to ``build a community so it can support a child,'' said Michael Williams, of Orchard Children's Services, a foster-care agency serving Southeast Michigan.

The diverted federal funds also will be used to expand family-preservation programs, reunite foster children with their birth families more efficiently and support relatives who care for foster children.

A recent report found that some $15 million in annual spending for abuse-prevention and family-preservation programs was sliced from the state budget between 2000 and 2006.

Meanwhile, investigated cases of abuse and neglect increased to more than 72,000 last year. Six of every 100 Michigan children now live in a home investigated for potential abuse or neglect.

Gazette staff writer Paula M. Davis contributed to this report. She can be reached at 388-8583 or pdavis@kalamazoogazette.com.

70 percent of children are in care as a result of poverty, its the same here, as the poorest children and families in Ont. YET the government has still done NOTHING to address this issue, give them back child tax benefits, better affordable housing, the huge increases in Hydro to pay the CEOs, and more. It would cost us all much less, and help children if we actually had politicians that could think! keep children with there biological families wow that's a novel idea! spend the money on services needed, and get the agencies to focus on real cases of abuse, and not the crap they tick off as risk,

Understand disease, and prevention,
the failures of the schools to address learning disability's caused by environmental toxin, such as ADD .
How does the government expect families and children to behave when they are the WORST role models children and youth could be exposed to, ever watch the parliamentary channels , the bashing, the sexism, the bickering, is this democracy, NO.
Is it something parents can turn to for educational TV. for children NO, its violent and needs a X rating, and this needs to stop as well.

Minister for Children and Youth, acts like an out of control 4 year old, and is modeling it for all to see. Sandra P have been moved from her post, ( how timely) but there again, ranting and screaming, it is abusive behaviour.

Many of us are left scratching are heads, are MPs are acting like children in need of Ritalin.

Perhaps the CAS should be ensuring this behaviour is not carried on in front of their children, I would be concerned.

last post, if you want change work for it, if CAS and CCAS wants the public trust, work for it, its not granted its earned and it is sad it has been lost,
but so have too many children, and family's torn apart for what?

No hydro not enough to eat, sham.
sham.
youth violence has a direct link to environmental lead and mercury levels, LEARN.
get industry out of bed with the government.
Do a simple inexpensive study on where the so called CAS hot spots are,and you will also find the most environmental contaminates and poverty. Could there be a link, duh. And then again you have a criminal component to the agencies as well, there is no other reasonable explanation for all the apprehension, there needs to be a Royal Commission of Inquiry and I am sure that day will come.
Environmental study really , help children
This should Not take two years or ten and a billon dollars to study, look at the postal codes. Look at the air quality, or just take a whiff, its not all cars but shit have then been slow on that one.
And yes indoor air quitly is a problem, we track in pesticides, metals, spray Lysol and so much more. I cant believe how long it has taken some in research to actually look at the multiple chemical in children's environment and say hey duh maybe this is a problem, and yet wasted billons in health care and shrinks care for the millions that suffer from environmental disease, instead of listening, is this is what's wrong with are children is this what ADHD is? probably.
Sham. Sick Kids really needs to do a study? how much did that cost?
The polar bear should be scaring the crap out of everyone on this planet, will it, I have my doubts, what do you think is happening to the brains of the unborn, I think alcohol and drugs would be the least of my concerns, THEY are all BORN POISONED TODAY, IS IT ANY WONDER, PARENTS SCHOOLS TROUBLED.

Until we look at the real causes, there is absolutely no need to manufacture, or be creative in coming up with reasons to take more children,anyone parenting some of the damaged children in society today better be up to it.
Adoption is not the answer for the masses, is it a way to regulate society, it wont work, it never has.
Social workers could do so much to actually help, if they were taught too, are physicians, are out of date, and over whelmed and angry( thanks to the government for messing up there savings) and all the Caps, no foresight, and trying to save dollars, yet wasteful spending in areas, like child protection when the schools and hospitals needed the funds desperately.
The issues are not all that complex, and there is not an epidemic of child abuse and domestic violence, its manufacturer.
There is an epidemic of cancers, childhood obesity, ( think! endocrine disrupters pesticides plastics metals now that is not novel either) There are babies dying in THIS country sham sham, from diseases caused from exposures.
Children with special needs autistic, where's it all coming from, and how dare this government criminalize parents and manufacture protection concerns, and the child so called protection agencies. I hope you get your butts sued off and should for that one. The natives it seems have learnt, from the horrors of the past, is this premier going to order the OPP to go in a shot them, WE are WATCHING.give them back there land, you have taken so much from them already.
And reform Child protection, its not only the correct thing to do, its the right thing to do.The only thing to do.

Anonymous said...

As stated, Sherri Charlie was killed in the home of a child welfare employee.

Anonymous said...

When I got involved in this in 2001, I did not attack CAS directly but the Ontario Government which enacted this onerous legislation in 1999. Sandra Pupatello, Frances Larkin and Janet Ecker were directly responsible. They knew what would happen...the needless apprehension of countless children and the destruction of families.

There will always be children in need of protection. We, the citizens of this Province, give these agencies the mandate to protect these vulnerable children. We rightfully expect this mandate to be limited by the rule of law and implemented in good faith. It has however been used to fuel an ever-enlarging child welfare system. It is all about jobs, careers, and money... but most of all money. I would say "Beware of the Child Protectors.

As an adoptive parent of 2 severely disabled children, I would suggest that these long term foster parents consider adopting these children that they profess to love. They will then truly deserve the title "Mom and Dad."

Mom and Dad are not meaningless words. They refer to particular people. As long as monies are being exchanged for services, these foster parents remain paid employees who can walk away at any time for whatever reason.

Mom and Dad are not paid to take care of their children. They do it out of committment and love, regardless of the hardship.

Anonymous said...

I agree somewhat with your description of mom and dad not being paid to be moms and dads.

Therefore, common sense tells me all those receiving "mother's allowance" in the province of Ontario should be booted off or have their children taken away. Sound fair to you? We can't have double standards here now can we?

These foster parents I was referring to always hoped these disabled children would be adopted. There has not even been one inquiry. These foster parents cannot adopt them for various reasons. Now their last hope is that a member of their family (who these children know well) will eventually adopt them.

They took these children in as temporary hoping they would be adopted as babies. All of these years later they still have them. Now they can't walk away--it is very heartbreaking.

I would not adopt these children--the costs are astronomical. Since you have 2 severely disabled adopted children you know only too well what I am talking about. Wheelchairs $8000 etc etc.

I am wondering how you can possibly afford all of the necessary equipment for 2 severely disabled children. The government program is laughable considering how long a wheelchair lasts.

I guess if one has a large 6 figure income they can do it but most can't.

Anonymous said...

I agree somewhat with your description of mom and dad not being paid to be moms and dads.

Therefore, common sense tells me all those receiving "mother's allowance" in the province of Ontario should be booted off or have their children taken away. Sound fair to you? We can't have double standards here now can we?

These foster parents I was referring to always hoped these disabled children would be adopted. There has not even been one inquiry. These foster parents cannot adopt them for various reasons. Now their last hope is that a member of their family (who these children know well) will eventually adopt them.

They took these children in as temporary hoping they would be adopted as babies. All of these years later they still have them. Now they can't walk away--it is very heartbreaking.

I would not adopt these children--the costs are astronomical. Since you have 2 severely disabled adopted children you know only too well what I am talking about. Wheelchairs $8000 etc etc.

I am wondering how you can possibly afford all of the necessary equipment for 2 severely disabled children. The government program is laughable considering how long a wheelchair lasts.

I guess if one has a large 6 figure income they can do it but most can't.

Anonymous said...

Mother's allowance is barely subsistence. It does not provide for an acceptable life style. These parents suffer the welfare humiliation to care for their children. The 2 examples are not quite analogous. These foster parents are not relegated to poverty. They get respite, volunteer support, medical and dental care and 2 weeks paid vacation a year and one weekend a month. Their earnings are tax-free. Volunteers provide transportation and monies are found for the unexpected need.

You can hardly compare foster parents to real parents. It would be obscene.

Anonymous said...

Because I personally know and/or have closely communicated with countless hundreds of families whose children were taken into foster care, I know things that I also know have been communicated to every possibly interested person for decades.
Too frequently the most often suggested and tried “solution” is to bring law suits to “reform foster care.”
Wrong answer.

Purse & Sword of State

We can re-form Frankenstein but we still have a monster. Children do not deserve to be punished for suspicions—even correct ones—against their parents or caretakers. I deal with false mistaken, mischievous or malicious allegations, too many arising from professionals hoping to distract an anticipated adverse professional report or malpractice action, hence “Shawna’s Bill” (ask for it).

Parents cannot overcome the power of the purse and sword that Congress ensures states have to defend against extra constitutional but “legal” actions of their empowered but unmonitored agents. Top law enforcers in each state—the Office of Attorney General—also is the lawyer for the offending agencies. Guess whose interests are first and best served?

Taxpayers should not be subsidizing all: everything that happens before, during and consequences of foster care as well as local and larger payoffs for suits that finally succeed against those needless and injurious actions that led to foster care and what happens when a child’s natural protectors are prevented from being there for him/her.

WE WILL PAY FOR THE MISTAKES THE CCAS MADE,
WE HAVE ALREADY PAID A GREAT DEAL,
WE HAVE ALL BEEN HARMED IN TANGIBLE WAYS, BY THE NEWS OF JEFFREY BALDWIN'S, HORRID LIFE, TORTURED DEATH, WHILE CHILDREN SEEN BUT NOT HEARD, WATCHED,
WILL ADULTS PLAYED AS THE BAN PLAYED ON,
WHILE THE CCAS
CARRIED ON, AND FORGOT, LOST, DID NOT, UNKNOWN! USED EXCUSES TO RUN FROM THE TRUTH, AND THE LAW. AND ARE STILL NOT ACCOUNTABLE.
OR OVERSEEN.
WE PAY FOR THE LAWSUITS, THE EARLY PAY OFF TO YOUNG CHILDREN, FOREVER HARMED, AND THEIR CONTINUED HARM IN THE HANDS OF THOSE TO INEPT, TO SEE WHAT SAT IN FRONT OF THEM IN CASE CONFERENCES.CAN WE TRUST THEM TO MAKE GET IT RIGHT, OF COURSE NOT. THEY NEVER HAVE.
WE PAY FOR THE CHILDREN TAKEN FROM FAMILY'S TO BE WARE HOUSED, TO BE RESEARCH MATERIAL, TO BE MOLESTED AND WORSE, TO BE MURDERED NEGLECTED, TO CRY FOR MOMMY FOR MANY YEARS, WHILE A SOCIETY PLAYS GAMES, OF BREAKING BONDS, NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT A DANGEROUS MIND THE WEAVE IN THEIR
INVESTIGATIONS OF ALLEGED ABUSE NEGLECT OR MADE UP ALTOGETHER FOR MALIOUS, MISGUIDED, OR OUT RIGHT LIES,WHO HARMS THE CHILD, WHO PLANTS THE SEEDS,WHO PLAYED SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE, REPRESSED MEMORIES MSBP OR THE LIKE, SHAKEN BABIES, AND MORE.IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE A COUPLE YELLING IN FRUSTRATION, ANGER IS ALWAYS FEAR. ANGER MANAGEMENT IS MORE FEAR INDUCED. TAKING ONES CHILDREN IS INSANITY. PROTECTING SOCIETY FROM THE PROCTORS IS SANE.
HOW LONG WILL WE PAY FOR THE REAL ABUSE EMPOWERED BY THE GOVERNMENT, OF COUNTLESS CHILDREN, THE SINS OF THE PAST, ( WE PAY FOR IN SPADES ) IN THE NAME OF CHILD PROTECTION.)
HOW LONG CAN WE PRETEND, NOT TO SEE THE TRUTH, HOW LONG DID PEOPLE WALK BY BODIES IN PILES IN GERMANY, MASS GRAVES THE WORLD OVER, THE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS, THE BABY'S IN BUTTER BOXES, THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS, THE UN RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, A FLAWED DOCUMENT REEKING HAVOC ON FAMILIES OUR POLICE, AND CHILDREN, CHILDREN ARE HUMAN AND ALREADY HAD RIGHTS, BUT NOW PARENTS DO NOT, AND CHILDREN DO, AND WE ASK, AND WE JUDGE, AND IN IGNORANCE SO MANY REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND, A 12 YEAR OLD IS AT AN ALL AGES DANCE, AND IS STAB, BECAUSE IT HER RIGHT, AND HER PARENTS DON'T TRULY HAVE ANY, HOW MANY PARENTS HAVE CRIED, PLEADED. TO HAVE A CHILD SENT TO REHABILITATION FOR A PROBLEM WITH DRUGS ALCOHOL, ONLY TO BE TOLD BY THE POLICE AND CAS , THAT IF THE CHILD DOES NOT WANT TO GO, AND THIS CHILD IS 13 SO BE IT, THE CHILD HAS THE RIGHT TO SELF DESTRUCT, AND TAKE YOURS AND MY FAMILY ALONG FOR THE HORROR AND SHAM OF IT ALL.

PEDOPHILES ,WE THINK WEAR TRENCH COATS AND HIDE UNDER BRIDGES ( WHERE MANY CROWN WARDS AND EX CROWN WARDS SLEEP) ARE NOW IN POWER, DOCTORS AND LAWYERS AND HEADS OF HOME LAND SECURITY, ACTORS AND NOT MOM AND DAD, SCREAMING FOR THEIR RIGHTS BACK SO THEIR 14 YEAR OLD CHILD, WILL UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT HER RIGHT TO BE SEXUALLY ABUSED BY THE 38 YEAR OLD LOW LIFE.
HIS, HER PARENTS PROTECTED SO DEAR, AND HOW CAN A 14 YEAR OLD REALLY DECIDE, WHEN SCIENCE NOW TELLS US THERE IS A REAL REASON FOR THE CHAOTIC , SLEEPY, TEENS WE RAISE,
RECALLING HOW THEY SEEMED SMARTER AT TWO. THEY MAY HAVE BEEN, THERE BRAINS ARE BEING REWIRED, THERE BODY'S CHANGING ( NOW SO YOUNG) HORMONES RAGING,
ARE THE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS BIOLOGICAL TRIP. NOT ANY MORE THEN THEY CAN BE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO CONSENT TO SEX WITH AN ADULT, YET ITS CHILDREN'S RIGHTS.
WILL THIS RIGHT LEAVE THEM INFERTILE FROM A SID, BECAUSE IT WAS THERE RIGHT, LEAD THEM TO ABORTION AT A HEART BREAKING AGE, BECAUSE ITS
A RIGHT
WILL THEIR PARENTS PAY THE COST OF THE BURIAL, BECAUSE HIV, OR AND ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT SID, SUICIDE, OR MURDERED, AND IT IS HAPPENING BECAUSE ITS CHILDREN'S RIGHTS.

HELL WHO IS NOT FOR CHILDREN RIGHTS IN THE THIRD WORLD, WHERE THEY WERE MEANT AND STARTED TO BE, A RIGHT TO NOT BE FORCED INTO PROSTITUTION, YET LOOK AT THE CROWN WARDS, ( CUT OFF SO YOUNG, NO LIFE SKILLS,NO BONDS NO FAMILY, THE GOVERNMENT IN FACT THE AGENCIES MANY YOUNG PEOPLE IN CARE NO OTHER CHOICE, MY HEART BROKE WATCHING THE YOUNG CROWN WARD MALE MOVE INTO A MUCH OLDER MALES APT. BECAUSE THERE WAS NO OTHER PLACE, THE YOUNG GIRLS.ON THE STREETS MANY WHERE WARDS OF THIS STATE AS WHERE THE HOMELESS AND THEY ARE ABOUT TO BECOME THE LARGEST NUMBERS OF HOMELESS IN HISTORY, ARE GOVERNMENT KNOWS THIS, BUT THINKS ABORTION IS THE ANSWER TO ALL THAT ILLS THEM. WRONG, LOOK AT THE FAILURE IN THE USA.

SLAVE LABOUR, YES CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO WORK ON THE STREETS IN INDIA, FOR A PENNY,BUT THEY ARE FARM HANDS AND MORE AND MUCH WORSE, IN CARE OR ADOPTED ALL ACROSS THE USA. AND INDEED HERE.PEOPLE WITHOUT A BIOLOGICAL TIE TO A CHILD ARE THE MOST RISK TO THAT CHILD, I KNOW THEY UNDERSTAND THIS, YET THEIR ACTIONS SEEM TO NOT CARE.
A RIGHT TO AN EDUCATION, SURE, BUT I KNOW MANY CHILDREN IN THIS PROVINCE THAT HAVE BEEN DENIED THAT RIGHT, AND NOT BECAUSE OF BEHAVIOUR. SCHOOLS ARE VERY WORRIED ABOUT LIABILITY, AND CHILDREN ARE ENTERING SCHOOLS WITH MANY DIFFICULT AND COMPLEX NEEDS,
CHILDREN DENIED THAT RIGHT IN ONTARIO? AND NO ONE HELP THE FAMILY'S, OF THE AUTISTIC, THE ANAPHYLAXIS, ASPERSERS, DS, THE CHEMICALLY SENSITIVE CHILD HAS NO RIGHTS AT ALL. AND PARENTS ARE LEARNING THAT ADVOCATING IN SCHOOLS CAN MEAN A CALL FROM TO THE CAS. IN HOSPITALS AND THE DOCTORS OFFICE, BECAUSE PARENTS HAVE NO RIGHTS, THIS SAME STORY IS REPEATED ALL OVER THE PLACE. GIVE ME A BREAK , HOW MANY MOMS HAVE MSP. IF YOUR A PARENT OR A FOSTER PARENT, AN ADOPTED PARENT IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, THEY WANT US ALL TO SHUT UP AND NOT ASK FOR A CENT FROM THE BROKEN SYSTEMS, WHILE THEY FUND THE SO CALLED CHILD PROTECTION AGENCIES TO THE TUNE OF 1.16 BILLON ALONE IN ONTARIO LAST YEAR. WOW , THAT'S A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY, BETTER SPENT ON EDUCATION MEDICAL RESEARCH, ( BUT PLEASE STOP USING THE WARDS OF THE STATE, ITS MORE THEN UNETHICAL NO MATTER HOW MANY i and ts you dot)




GIVE PARENTS BACK THEIR RIGHTS, AND BRIGHTER FUTURES, LOL HOW MANY NGOS, DOES IT TAKE TO SCREW IN THE LIGHT BULB.
THINK!

BEFORE THERE IS NO FUTURE CHILDREN TO GIVE MORE RIGHTS TOO.
WHO ARE THOSE PEOPLE ANYWAY.
CHRISTIANS IN HIDING, HOME SCHOOLERS IN ATTICS,WHERE ARE WE GOING, GERMANY IN THE NOT SO DISTANT PAST, COMES TO MIND, AND THE AGENCIES ARE OFFENDED. AND THE REST OF US SAY THAT PARENT OR GROUP HAS LOST IT, REFERRING CHILDREN PROTECTION TO NAZIS, TO THE
HOLOCAUST,
BUT ARE BEST AND BRIGHTEST, ARE DOING IT AS WELL. AUTHORS, EVEN COLOROSO, SPEAKS OF IT, WRITES ABOUT IT, IS SHE RIGHT, HAVE WE PLANTED THE SEEDS FOR A GENOCIDE, WE ARE A CULTURE OF MEANNESS. WHY DO WE NOT STOP A WORKER FROM CARRYING OFF A SCREAMING CHILD,
APPREHEND MEANS ARREST, IS THE CHILD PUNISHED, BECAUSE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO MICRO MANAGE FAMILY'S. YES.

HOW DO WE CALL, WHEN WE KNOW A CHILD IS BEING HARMED,????
I NOW MUST ASK MYSELF, IF HIS PARENTS,NEGLECT IS WORSE THEN THE RISK OF DEATH IN A FOSTER HOME, READ OVER AFTER FOSTER CARE RERUN MY TAPE ON THE CROWN WARDS, UNDERSTAND THAT MY CONCERN WILL BE MAGNIFIED INTO EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING ABOUT THE FAMILY, THAT THEY WILL ALL BE HARMED, AND THE EXTENDED FAMILY AS WELL. AND THE CHILD ?
NO I WILL KNOCK ON THE DOOR, AND DO MY BEST, TO FIND A SOLUTION. BECAUSE , IT IS MY DUTY AS A GOOD CITIZEN, CAN THE ACT BE USED AGAINST ME FOR PERHAPS SENDING A CHILD TO FOSTER CARE OR A GROUP HOME, AND HIS OR HER ENTIRE LIFE IS CHANGE MAYBE MOST LIKELY NOT FOR THE BETTER.
KNOCK ON THE DOOR. OR DO I MIND MY OWN BUSINESS, AND WHAT IF, BUT EITHER WAY TODAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT CHILD PROTECTION AGENCIES ARE MOE HARMFUL THEN HELPFUL, AND WHAT A SHAM. THAT TOO IS ARE COLLECTIVE DOING, BY NOT LISTENING TO THE FAMILY'S AND CHILDREN AND TO FEW PROFESSIONALS THAT TRIED TO TELL US LONG AGO.

AS HARPER TRIES TO MAKE GOVERNMENT MORE ACCOUNTABLE. KENNEDY LEFT TO RUN, FOR LEADERSHIP, LEAVING IN HIS WAKE BAD NEW FOR THE SCHOOL BOARDS, BUT NECESSARY AND ACCOUNTABLE THEY ALL SHOULD BE, SO SHOULD ALL PEOPLE AND AGENCIES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN.
DISMANTLE THIS SCAM. SAYS THE WRITER I AM IMPOSING MY OWN THOUGHTS INTO THE MIDDLE OF HER WRITINGS, SHE IS AND HAS BEEN AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, FOR MANY YEARS, SHE LIKE SO MANY THAT SIGNED PETITIONS EDUCATED ME, ON THINGS I NEVER WANTED TO BELIEVE, HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE, BUT OF COURSE IT IS, AND I MISS MY OWN NAIVETY. LEARY FROM EXPERNACE.

HOW MANY MOTHER WEPT, AFTER YEARS OF TAKING OH SO GOOD CARE OF HER SPECIAL CHILD, THE CHILD SHE FOUGHT FOR IEPS IN SCHOOL, AND RIGHTS TO AIDS, ONLY TO HAVE NO WAY TO HANDLE THAT NOW BIGGER CHILD AND NEED HELP WITH CARE AND RESPITE HERSELF SO NEEDED, SO EARNED, TO BE TOLD BY CAS WE HAVE NO HELP FOR THE CHILD , ONLY IF YOU ABANDONED THAT VERY SPECIAL CHILD, AND GIVE HIM TO US,CAN WE THEN SEE IF WE WILL HELP. BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE, MY ASS, BETWEEN HELL AND HIGH WATER. AND A RECORD THAT GO AWAY AS NEATLY AS THE CHILDREN DID. EVERY CHILDS DEATH UNDER THE AGE OF TWO IS A HOMICIDE TODAY UNTIL PROVED OTHER WISE. HOW SILLY HOW HEART BREAKING.
TELL US SOME NE POST, HOW WELL THE CAS TREATED THEM AND THEIRS, SHOW US ONLY A FEW THOUSAND, AND MORE HAVE SAID OVER WISE.
THIS INDUSTRY WITH OUT QUESTION NEEDS TO END, THE CHILDREN
IN UGANDA FORCED TO MURDER AND DETACH, PERHAPS THE AGENCIES SHOULD BE SENT ALL THERE.THEY HAVE EXPERNACE.THEY ARE THE WAR LORDS, OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD.



Only by telling the whole truth, now and not another decade or two later when the worst offenders, originators and continuing proponents are retired or deceased, will Congress have the heart and stomach to stop funding family-fracturing, child-traumatizing foster care (ever more obvious pre-adoptive pipeline, as it became after ASFA and continuing Congressional appropriations made money more available).

If the right, reasonable, compassionate and Constitutional route is chosen, the current foster care system that fuels America’s holocaust of the home will go into the history books and stop dis-membering American families."
blank when people even dream that re-forming a system that feeds on children and families and keeps growing into the nightmare it has become will make things better, I am stunned they can imagine for even long enough to spend the time and energy developing a site and a purpose that re-forming such a miserable excuse for "child protection" will work to the advantage of any child or heart-broken family.

Children, IF they must be removed temporarily or permanently from parents, SHOULD go to loving family members or neighbors or godparents WHO SHOULD NOT BE HARRASSED (or threatened or bribed with "If you'll say the mother did x,y,z MAYBE we'll let the child stay with you, etc.) while the child is with them. Those people known to and loved by the child should have at LEAST a measure of all the benefits and services that strangers would have had if they had offered a new "forever home" and all the rest.

Of course my heart goes out to every person who thinks he/she has a new and better answer and this new site or new group or new enthusiasm or new place to share this and that and come up with new laws that will equally fail as long as "child advocates" are allowed to be the voice "for the children." NO, NO, NO: use a fundamental fairness, "reasonable man" or Constitutional standard in America and nearly all of the old laws MUST be rescinded.

If people spent their energy forcing politicians to consult law school professors about the standards used for "investigations" and the policies and regulations and laws, then exposure by the press and elected politicians (if I live long enough to see that) would cause the entire system to evaporate into the nothingness on which it is based. THAT is what must happen rather than a "reform" of a nightmare.

BY INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER Barbara Bryan, CAPS my own, identity unknown, like so many children and families,but not by order
for then I would SHOUT.

Anonymous said...

To the last poster... I know you are trying to make a point by printing in bold but I have to be honest with I did not even read it because it is too difficult. It is much easier to read in regular type.

Anonymous said...

I agree reading this capitals is difficult and "lost in translation". I too did not read it.

Anonymous said...

sorry I wrote in caps, because my thoughts are inbedded into the repoters comments.and could not bold them ,

Anonymous said...

I was able to read it, its right on, you have done your homework, by the way who ever posted on the book writer, Wexler wrote the ACT that is now also Bill 210. and said and wrote about its total flop.
Whats wrong with children rights, is written by also someone that worked in the feild for many years, a lawyer, and it is truth.
The people writibg on the tragic out comes for children caused by child protection are the experts that worked in it, wrote the laws, and so forth. They are not unfit parents making a fast buck.
unfit is a sick term, unfit as in not in the gym three times a week, we understand that weight is also used against parents, would not have a hope in hell in a human rights case.
Nor would any of the unfit stuff CAS claims is reason enough to remove a child, none of it would wash in a higher court, or human rights case. none of it ever has that has gone that far. reporting should be done very carefully after the ruling in the Wanda Young case.
And Harvey vs CAS, that should be good to watch. addittions is an illness, there is treatment. mental health discrimination is also against human rights, there too is treatment, yes some parents do need help, unfit is going to cost this governemnt and the insurance companys dearly. Because its a judgment call, and could be against all human rights.
think please, social workers are not really good thinkers, programed and fed the proaganda, like far to many.

Anonymous said...

The poster who claims family members do not come forward on behalf of children abducted by CAS should be aware of the following:

I am directly aware of an expecting mom who has been told her child will be seized at birth. A family member came forward (and remember the law is supposed to encourage kinship care) only to be told the baby is spoken for - it will not go to foster care and will be immediately adopted to a waiting couple. This is even more suspicious in that the baby's sex is unknown and I have never heard of anyone adopting without having a preference for a boy or a girl. Here, there is no illusion of CAS working with the mom or supporting the family - one more example of how these agencies really work - the bottom line is cash and adoption is the ticket.

Anonymous said...

To the poster above I also know of a situation where the uncle wants to take a baby and raise them in the family, they would be fine to help them - but the baby is also in foster care, waiting for the stranger to adopt them. Children have never been the clients of the CAS, and they are still hunting down babies for a putrid industry for people who want children. It is disgusting.

Anonymous said...

It is really difficult that reporters cannot report about the CAS and other situations due to privacy laws. Privacy laws to me are not protecting individuals they are all too often protecting the government, and the CAS.

Anonymous said...

I agree mom and dad do it out of commitment and love regardless of the hardship.

It might surprise some readers to know that when I was growing up as a kid we had very little. My father took any and all work offered to him. Welfare did not exist in any form.

Thus I stand by my statement that if moms do it out of love why the mothers allowance? My parents endured hardships--we had no car, telephone, and limited food. Second hand clothes wre the norm.

The fact is there are mothers out there who make collecting mother's allowance their "job" . Multiply the cheque times 4 kids and add baby bonus maximum on to it and it is more money than most could earn if they went to work. All tax free.!!

I cannot understand the difference between paying foster parents and paying moms mothers allowance. Sure it is not the same amount but the mom was the one who decided not to use birth control. She could have used the NO word.

The hatred for foster parents is unjustified. They are (for the most part) providing a necessary service. Mothers who produce child after child with no viable income are a leech on our system. I am not saying it is a walk in the park but it sure isnt the way it was as I grew up.

The exception to the above is the woman who was in an abusive relationship who chose to leave it and now needs help to get on her feet. Nobody minds helping in those situations and we should support these women.

Anonymous said...

RCMP believes body of Phoenix Sinclair found
Updated Sun. Apr. 23 2006 11:25 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

RCMP officers believe they have found the body of Phoenix Sinclair near a garbage dump in Fisher River, Man.

Officials are now conducting forensic tests to positively identify the remains, the Winnipeg Sun reports.

The RCMP charged the parents of the little girl with five counts of first-degree murder in March.

The charges include allegations that five-year-old Phoenix was locked in a pig pen, shot at with a BB gun, beaten with a broom handle and deprived of food and water.

The little girl's mother Samantha Dawn Kematch initially faced various non-homicide charges, including failure to provide the necessities of life.

Police had first charged her common-law husband, Karl Wesley McKay, with second-degree murder.

Police believe Phoenix was killed on the Fisher River reserve last June. The community is located 220 kilometres north of Winnipeg.

The slain girl went missing for nine months. It was allegedly only until her 12-year-old stepbrother went to police two months ago that her disappearance was reported.

The case has brought criticism to Manitoba's child welfare system. Phoenix was placed in foster care, but returned to Kematch in 2003.

Child welfare officials closed their file on Phoenix in March 2005, three months before police allege she was killed.

In that same year, the agency was transferring files on aboriginal children from Winnipeg's family services division to new aboriginal-run agencies.

Conservative critic Mavis Taillieu speculated that a bureaucratic error may have closed Phoenix's file.

"What we've heard with the whole transfer process was that it was pushed through very quickly.... that there was a lot of room for error," Taillieu told CP in March.

Premier Gary Doer called the case deeply troubling and said a public inquiry should be launched.

Meanwhile, two provincial probes of the child welfare system have been announced. One, by the provincial ombudsman, will examine the system as a whole. The second -- involving the ombudsman, children's advocate and a psychologist -- will focus more specifically on the Phoenix case.

With files from The Canadian Press

Anonymous said...

I am referring to the writer who says:

"The hatred for foster parents is unjustified. They are (for the most part) providing a necessary service. Mothers who produce child after child with no viable income are a leech on our system."

This writer has a hatred of the welfare class and she thinks that it is okay to take their children because they are irresponsible in producing them. It has nothing to do with their capacity as parents. It has to do with their poverty.

Child care is a job for foster parents. They are providing a service and they are handsomely paid for it. Foster parents are not living in dire poverty.

Anonymous said...

Mother allowance Baby bonus, women taking children leaving abusive partner, in many many cases have the children taken from them as well, WHY?
good question, truthful answer is CAS takes children for money, and we pay with are hard earned tax bucks, to not only pay for moms welfare, but the children who are usually are separated into different foster home, or group homes labelled as special needs ( the CAS gets more money that way, and so do the foster parents)
special needs may be a learning disability that the child does not even have.
So we punish the mom for leaving and we punish the children forever, get it.
sick isn't it and true, read and learn, get out there with a petition and listen to the horror, even the shelters workers , well some of them think its crazy. It was a judge that signed the petition that told me about this happening, his concern is more women will be forced to choice between living with the abusive partner or her children, leaving she may lose it all. and if she stays, well, this is another between a rock and a hard place, more like hell and high water.
mothers on welfare don't get ( baby bonus) child tax credit, that has also been in the paper often, as its an ongoing battle in Queens part, child tax benefit is for the working class only, it should be going to mothers on welfare. Not all of them all leaching off the system, and we all need to take a step back and stop being judgemental. And better citizens ask what you can do to help a young women taking care of young children, maybe all she really needs is less judgment and a good mentor and friend, be one it works.
What happens to fathers in the sane situations why do we not have shelters for men and children, perhaps needing to leave for the same reason. Men are abused as well. And this system screws fathers all the time. Where do they go?
changing child protection is not about women on welfare, its about a corrupt over powdered secret society, that needs more then oversight, its needs a total inquiry.

Anonymous said...

Wednesday, April 19, 2006
E-mail this | Print page

Families of abuse

Imagine you are a mother, plotting her getaway from an abusive relationship.

Then imagine that if you make it to a shelter for abused women, the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services might take your children away on the grounds that a shelter isn't a good place for kids.



That's exactly what is happening in the Lexington area, according to Darlene Thomas, director of the Bluegrass Domestic Violence Program, which serves Fayette and 16 surrounding counties.

She told the Lexington Herald-Leader that the cabinet had taken custody of about 50 children in the last year, an action she insisted was justified in only about five of those instances.

The cabinet's response is that it has no "policy" of removing the children of domestic violence victims. That's done case by case.

Jennifer Hancock, chief operating officer of the Center for Women & Families in Louisville, which provides services to domestic abuse survivors and their children in a 14-county area that includes Southern Indiana, said what's happening in Lexington was "news to me."

But Kentucky Youth Advocates' Terry Brooks said the goings-on in Lexington may reflect differences between "family preservationists" and backers of "radical take-aways."

Being wedded to either philosophy, he said, betrays what should be the main goal, which is striking a balance between protecting children and providing victims of domestic violence the necessary supports to succeed in a changed life.

Ms. Hancock advocates keeping lines of communications between the cabinet and community advocates, and favors such "empowering interventions" as collaborations.

For example, she supports "family team meetings" that bring all service providers together to work out plans for individual families, and cross-training between the cabinet and community services.

Ultimately, it requires Solomon-like wisdom to make the sorts of decisions that the cabinet and community advocates are expected to make daily.

We on the outside can help by supporting them and supporting victims of domestic violence who have taken a big step to better their lives and their children's lives by breaking away from their abusers.


thats whats happening every place

Anonymous said...

You have misunderstood my posting.

I was comparing the monies we provide foster parents ($30-$35 per day) to the monies we provide mothers on mothers allowance. In no way did my statement encourage taking these children from their mother who has made yet another bad decision in her life.

AS I said in previous posts I grew up in poverty and am no worst for it. However those days were before "mothers allowance". My father worked at any job available.

This is not the same as today... where women produce children knowing full well they will be raising them as a single parent. These women become a burden to taxpayers and most taxpayers would agree.

There are a limited amount of women whose goal is to change their lives and get back to work. Most of them dont have 3 plus kids though.

Yes fostering is a job--a necessary job. I never said they lived in poverty.

Neither do the women on mothers allowance. If they do it is because of their lousey spending habits. I worked in a bank for many years and could never get over the size of their cheques. I used to struggle to get 2 children to daycare before heading to work. My husband was terminally illness. These women had the pay per view boxing matches on their cable bill meanwhile we couldnt afford it.

Something is wrong with this picture. Why would a single woman keep producing children while on welfare? I am telling you it is "their job".

This is why many of the US states decided not to pay more monies for any future births--that the welfare cheque would remain the same. Unfortunately the children will suffer.

I never advocated taking children away from the poor--just the incompetent regardless of monies.

Anonymous said...

You are wrong wrong wrong.!!!!!!!! You obviously do not understand the tax rules and child tax credits.

The working class rarely receive child tax credits EXCEPTION: low incme earners. And the welfare moms always receive child tax credit. I am unsure where you get your information from. They file a tax return for that very reason.

Not only do they receive child tax credit but they receive the maximum amount per child. This is on top of their mothers allowance cheque.

Nobody minds helping moms get on their feet by providing mothers allowance. But when this goes on year after year with the factory open it becomes another story.

Anonymous said...

To the person that is continually bashing welfare moms, a few facts regarding the myths and realities of welfare may be in order:

First, it's a mistake to assume that any of us are immune to the personal tragedies and misfortunes that lead to reliance on welfare.

Myth: Mothers on welfare have too many kids.

Reality: Families on welfare tend to be small. The stereotype of welfare families with large numbers
of children is not even close to the truth. Nearly half of all single-parent families on welfare have only one child; another 31% have two children. In other words, about 80% of welfare families have two children or less.

Myth: People on social assistance are lazy and do not want to work.

Reality: Many people on social assistance want to work, but cannot find jobs to support themselves or their families. A study of Ontario social assistance recipients by York University found that the most commonly cited reason for leaving their job was because of a layoff or because the employer went out of business, closed or relocated. That people continue to need social assistance says more about the labour market and changing economy than about the character of people. Lack of work is the largest single reason people are on welfare, and it probably accounts for more than half of all welfare cases. Disability is the second most common reason and is a factor in perhaps one-quarter of all cases. So, about seventy-five percent of welfare recipients are affected by extreme personal misfortune.

Myth: People on welfare are uneducated.

Reality: Statistics suggest that a high percentage of welfare recipients are are well educated and that disability or aging may be bigger barriers to employment than lack of education. The Daily Bread Food Bank in Toronto reports that 41.1% of food bank clients on welfare have at least some college or university education.

Myth: Welfare rates are too generous.

Reality: All welfare rates in Canada are well below the poverty line. A couple with 2 children in Toronto
receives $14,316 per year. This is $21,115 below the estimated Low Income Cut-Off (LICO).

Every significant study has shown that welfare caseload growth tends to coincide with periods of recession and rise of unemployment. It is not the meager benefit levels
that attract people to welfare or discourage them from leaving to find a job.

Personally, I know several wonderful parents on welfare. If you wish to scold someone for taking advantage of the system, you might wish to take a look at foster homes. Every one I have personal knowledge of does not have any real interaction with the children they benefit from to the point that these children eat seperately from the family.

Anonymous said...

Last time I looked, the Ontario government was still clawing back billions of dollars in national child benefits meant for the province's poorest families.

Anonymous said...

It would also be nice if the reader that hates single welfare moms actually researched statistics for crack-addicted mothers and other slurs she uses to demonize these moms with her wildly distorted opinions.

Whenever her statements are exposed on another board, she simply repeats them on a new board. Talk about manipulation.

Anonymous said...

In fact, characterizations of being shiftless and lazy would be better applied to the proprietors of foster homes. These places rely on CAS income for their subsistance. Most foster homes are run by people at the bottom end of the income scale - they simply need money. Many are outright dumps. The proprietors have little intelligence or ambition - many could be fairly described as the bottom dwellers of society.

Matthew Reid's "amazing" foster home was one such dump - the boy suffered months of abuse in that "excellent" facility before being murdered by a disturbed teenager CAS placed with such a young child.

Anonymous said...

No research necessary--the proof is in the pudding.

You can deny it all you like....and you can print article after article by some "authority" wanting to make a fast buck.

I have seen the bi-product of the drug and alcohol abuse....time and time again. I have seen only 2 children in the foster home I referred to who were not born to drug/alcohol addicts. The numbers speak for themselves.

The media says the same thing discreetly-- they are afraid to tell it like it is. All the programs you want on abuse by CAS are not hapenning though are they? I wonder why.

I look forward to the day CAS records are open--the majority of support natural parents receive will dwindle.

I know there are crappy foster homes. I also know CAS is doing a lousey job. I also know most babies in care are born to addicts.

Anyone employed in the mental health field knows what is going on with CAS and the natural parents and it is not pretty.

Drug addiction is out of control--deny it all you like.

Anonymous said...

According to you, parents murdering their children was also out of control -deny it all you like but your statements are unsubstantiated. Mental health? Check out how that issue has been used to misrepresent perfectly normal children as special needs for an extra big paycheque. Why not start with the Duplessis Orphans in Quebec. Drug addiction has little to do with the vast majority of CAS cases - check the facts for yourself. The statistics and demographics do not correlate strongly to CAS involvement. Unfortunately, that does not prevent CAS from fostering the impression that parents are hopeless drug addicts. In the past you have used any bogey man available to manipulate and misrepresent a point with complete disdain for the facts. Recently, you have shown some progress, recognizing there are crappy foster homes and that CAS does a lousy job. For that, I commend you. One day, you may realize that what others are telling you is the truth and that parents and children abused by CAS have not independently made up stories with identical themes regarding CAS' willful dishonesty, maliciousness, lies, negligence and incompetence.

Anonymous said...

This is what I have said ALL ALONG:

1) Many of those employed by CAS have done a lousey job
2) There are plenty (NOT ALL!!) of crappy foster homes.
3)There have been children abused in foster care
4)There have been cases of CAS involvement with families when it was not warranted (most if not all involved spouses wanting to get even, jealous neighbors/friends) HOWEVER I also believe once CAS gets the clearer picture CAS butts out. Exception is when these complaints appear justified.
5)Some do choose to give their children up voluntarily--with birth control it is not so prevalent today but very common in the 60's

All of the above is relatively obvious to me. I have had exposure to CAS for many many years. I have spoken to the adults who spent their childhood in CAS care. Jeffrey Baldwin was a clear case of the lousey job CAS was doing. I have also been in many foster homes unexpectedly. I have seen babies thrive and grow in these homes. I have also seen some that should not exist. I have gone to visits with the parents/child and I can fully understand in many cases why these children were taken away.

Please do not distort my writings and propose that I have "come on board". I have not changed a thing. The difference being is that you are actually reading my posting.

Anonymous said...

I think the pro CAS poster must be in the adoption business. This is chapter one - convince people that the family is the enemy then move on from there.

I don't believe all the babies in care were born to crack addicted mothers and considering the lies of the CAS no one should be as foolish as to think so either. This is about a business of finding babies for others.

Anonymous said...

It would also be nice if the reader that hates single welfare moms actually researched statistics for crack-addicted mothers and other slurs she uses to demonize these moms with her wildly distorted opinions.

Whenever her statements are exposed on another board, she simply repeats them on a new board. Talk about manipulation.

I AGREE - it must be a broker or a CAS worker that is posting this. Only people in the business of destroying families support the destruction of things to assist families. They hate natural families, they always have.

Anonymous said...

BNope it isnt all crack...there is heroine, alcohol and other drugs I do not know. There is also mental illness.

Go ahead deny deny deny.....

Obviously you have a cross to bare....for some reason? I dont.

By the way I realize you may not know the difference between dysfunctional families and families. I do and I am part of one.

Anonymous said...

Mental health issues involving the mother not the children.

Because one carries a baby for 9 months does not make them competent. Who in their right mind would use drugs while they were pregnant???????????

Perhaps those in denial do.

Anonymous said...

Wrong again stupid!! No ties to CAS or brokers, nor do I want to adopt or foster any child.

I am not stupid enough for that. What better way to ruin my life than take on someone elses addiction through their children.

Someone had a good idea....abolish all foster care and adoption and let these incompetent parents take care of their own problems. Ultimately it will be cheaper on the taxpayers as the numbers are bound to go down. It will certainly cost less as you suggested foster care costs are high. The government will continue to support these incompetents with welfare alone.Tax dollars can then be spent on roads, health care, education and other important things. So what if we look like Mexico with children selling packages of gum on the street corner and begging.

It sounded like a very good plan, great idea!! And then I remembered one real important thing......what about the poor children who didnt ask to be born into these dysfunctional families.?

Too bad it couldnt work...but the children should not suffer for their "natural" parents screw ups.

Get over it...there are plenty of incompetent parents out there.

Anonymous said...

Because one carries a baby for 9 months does not make them competent. Who in their right mind would use drugs while they were pregnant???????????

Has to be someon in the business posting this above. I think those on crack are addicts and that they do not willingly want to hurt their child. We need better help for addicts not more hatred for them - and many I suspect are abuse victims themselves that cannot cope - where was the CAS for these people?

It seems that only single, and unmarried parents are the enemy to this poster on a site about fixing the CAS - this person appears to have no problem with the abuse of power going on with the CAS? Very weird.

Anonymous said...

I hate to break it to the pro CAS poster, but CAS continues to legally act against families even when it knows its allegations are groundless. The system allows it to do so without any fear of retribution. This is one of the main reasons why the Ombudsman is seeking powers of oversight.

Anonymous said...

This person has never offered the slightest substantiation for her outlandish opinions and is determined to ignore all evidence to the contrary. Her own statement, "no research necessary" summarizes the level of her ignorance. She has completely discredited herself - to the point that no one is listening to her babble.

Anonymous said...

It would also be nice if the reader that hates single welfare moms actually researched statistics for crack-addicted mothers and other slurs she uses to demonize these moms with her wildly distorted opinions.

Whenever her statements are exposed on another board, she simply repeats them on a new board. Talk about manipulation.

Reply - I think so as well. And what is also interesting is that it is only single mothers that they are attacking as that is the target of the adoption industry. Married infertile strangers that want to buy a baby are not capable of being drug addicts or abusive to this poster. I truly feel they are a broker. Those in the business love the CAS as they nicely paved the way for them.

Anonymous said...

Well we know one thing for sure, the pro CAS poster is a liberal !!!! roads before health care and education, Hi Sandra is that you??
How do you like your new post.
Are you still ragging on about your ex leaving you, and having babies with someone else, by the way your in need of some cosmetic surgery dear your face is looking real old, your ranting on TV makes you look in need of mental health services, no one should EVER let you parent.

The poster has an anger management problem. Was perhaps just dumped again. Or is seriously ill, in need of attention.
Get over it, your myopic opinions are not based in reality, not even the reality of a social worker. Go do something useful. get a petition with a few thousands signatures that states CAS is not in need of oversight. And have it presented.
Are there people that cant parent, yes, we all know that, what is the solution, what do you want to do with the babies, born with FAS and suffering from with drawl, I did adopt a child,with FAE , and birth defects, unknown to us at the time of course, we did not take the child back once we found out, you don't usually find out till your bonded and so in love with that little person, it does not matter, you take care of them and love them all the more. GET IT. and this child's natural mother, never went on to have more children, she is not some useless person, she is my child's natural mother, whom I respect and love as well, for giving birth to the child I am blessed to raise. and its not always easy, but then again doing anything worth while rarely is.


I know another poster that post on this sight, 2 special needs children. Both adopted and single mom in a thankless job, fighting a the battle every day to keep people alive literally.
Watching them die, caring deeply about them all, and the ones she is yet to meet, and trying to prevent more of the dreaded disease she treats daily,by being an activist, humble she does not shout, for all to hear, I leave work and go give a talk on pesticides come home to take care of two high needs children and she does it because she loves them and its not easy. And they are better off because of her.
She believes in open adoption, she also understands children are taken, from homes they never should have been, she is and very bright, she is also is a trying to help other people by changing this so called child protection system.
Why would she do this, if there was not a true need? perhaps you need to ask yourself, who are some of the posters on this web site, you would be surprised.
But why do you post? what's is it that has truly harmed you, or made you feel the way you do.
I am curious, no one carries around that much anger ( which is really fear and pain) with out reason.
But many of us do truly care about child, understand parents are not all perfect, who is?
and all but the most abusive can be helped, and should be for the sake of the child.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps hating single moms so vehemently results in selective memory loss.

If you review the pro CAS poster's comments, she has done anything but held the following views ALL ALONG:

1) Many of those employed by CAS have done a lousy job

2) There are plenty (NOT ALL!!) of crappy foster homes.

3)There have been children abused in foster care

4)There have been cases of CAS involvement with families when it was not warranted

At least she admits to being part of a dysfuncional family - presumably her cross to bear. That would account for her hatred, bigotry and outlandish posts.

Mental Health of Mothers? I wonder if Pro CAS realizes that that the suicide rates among psychiatrists is tops in Canada. Has she actually looked at the criteria pyschologists use to assess mental health - it would be a complete joke except CAS uses such ridiculous assumptions to create havoc with mothers' lives. For example, if a mom expresses concern or anger with CAS stupidity she is almost certain to be labelled as having a mental health issue. Depression, which is a normal response mechanism when people are dealing injustice, sets off a CAS feeding frenzy where people permanently lose their children. Nothing causes depression like dealing with CAS.

It may come as a shock to the pro CAS poster that very few women use illicit drugs during pregnancy. It is estimated that only about 700 fetal alcohol syndrome babies are born in all of Canada each year, including the native communities. Divide this figure accordingly by province, territory and centres of habitation and you will see how skewed CAS' activities are. Moreover, anyone that knows about estimates within the health and social services fields will recognize these estimates are often exaggerated beyond any credibility for the purposes of funding.

Serious mental health issues among women such as schizophrenia affect an extremely minute section of the population. With respect to addiction, you may wish to consider the following:

In Canada, there are under 1,700 deaths annually(both sexes and all age groups)from illegal drugs. Under 1,000 of these deaths (both sexes and all age groups) resulted from fatal overdoses. Under 300 (both sexes and all age groups) were suicides linked to drug use. Under 200 (both sexes and all age groups)resulted from hepatitis C infection linked to drug use (your characterization of welfare moms as hopelessly addicted drug addicts.

Given such statistics, it is astounding (and highly telling) the number of people unfairly slurred with drug and alcohol labels by CAS to gain control of their children.

Anonymous said...

Here's a wonderful recipe for disaster. CAS labels parents as having mental health issues. Psychiatrists then turn them into drug addicts. Consider the case of the "distingushed" Ontario psychiatrist Dr. Eddie Kingstone, suspended by the College of Physicians and Surgeons for prescribing excessive amounts of narcotics to 23 patients.

Kingstone regularly and irresponsibly prescribed Percocet and Dilaudid, two narcotics known to be intensely addictive. In one case, a man with no history of drug abuse died after Kingstone prescribed these drugs as well as Ritalin and Paxil in increasingly large amounts.

Shockingly Kingstone served as head of psychiatry at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, vice-provost for Health Sciences at U of T, and chairman of the Faculty of Health Sciences at McMaster University. He was also editor of The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry for almost 20 years. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

Sounds like another "eminent Ontario expert" that caused untold misery to families - Dr. Charles Smith.

Anonymous said...

Post april 24 @4:41 21 YOU ARE ONE OF THEM. You are sick, did your parents abuse you and they were drug additics! I don't know why your knocking down parents all the time. YOU MUST BE A BAD PARENT, you have too much anger in you you are always putting someone down who doesn't spell right or doesn't have your views, what's really wrong with you?

Anonymous said...

On that note, here is an article from Dufferin VOCA - posted here for the benefit of the Pro CAS reader. Like CAS, the "mental health" industry is driven by big money:

The Washington Post

Experts Defining Mental Disorders Are Linked to Drug Firms

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 20, 2006; A07

Every psychiatric expert involved in writing the standard diagnostic criteria for disorders such as depression and schizophrenia has had financial ties to drug companies that sell medications for those illnesses, a new analysis has found.

Of the 170 experts in all who contributed to the manual that defines disorders from personality problems to drug addiction, more than half had such ties, including 100 percent of the experts who served on work groups on mood disorders and psychotic disorders. The analysis did not reveal the extent of their relationships with industry or whether those ties preceded or followed their work on the manual.

"I don't think the public is aware of how egregious the financial ties are in the field of psychiatry," said Lisa Cosgrove, a clinical psychologist at the University of Massachusetts in Boston, who is publishing her analysis today in the peer-reviewed journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics.

The analysis comes at a time of growing debate over the rising use of medication as the primary or sole treatment for many psychiatric disorders, a trend driven in part by definitions of mental disorders in the psychiatric manual.

Cosgrove said she began her research after discovering that five of six panel members studying whether certain premenstrual problems are a psychiatric disorder had ties to Eli Lilly & Co., which was seeking to market its drug Prozac to treat those symptoms. The process of defining such disorders is far from scientific, Cosgrove added: "You would be dismayed at how political the process can be."

The American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the guidelines in its bible of disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), said it is planning to require disclosure of the financial ties of experts who write the next edition of the manual -- due around 2011. The manual carries vast influence over the practice of psychiatry in the United States and around the world.

Darrel Regier, director of the association's division of research, said that concerns over disclosure are a relatively recent phenomenon, which may be why the last edition, published in 1994, did not note them. Regier and John Kane, an expert on schizophrenia who worked on the last edition, agreed with the need for transparency but said financial ties with industry should not undermine public confidence in the conclusions of its experts. Kane has been a consultant to drug companies including Abbott Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Janssen and Pfizer Inc.

"It shouldn't be assumed there is a true conflict of interest," said Kane, who said his panel's conclusions were driven only by science. "To me, a conflict of interest implies that someone's judgment is going to be influenced by this relationship, and that is not necessarily the case. . . ."

The DSM defines disorders in terms of constellations of symptoms. While neuroscience and genetics are revealing biological aspects to many disorders, there has been unease that psychiatry is ignoring social, psychological and cultural factors in its pursuit of biological explanations and treatments.

"As a profession, we have allowed the biopsychosocial model to become the bio-bio-bio model," Steven Sharfstein, president of the American Psychiatric Association, said in an essay last year to his colleagues. He later added, "If we are seen as mere pill pushers and employees of the pharmaceutical industry, our credibility as a profession is compromised."

He stressed that the association has strict guidelines to police the role of the pharmaceutical industry but said the profession as a whole needs to do a better job monitoring ethical conflicts.

Sharfstein added yesterday that the presence of experts with ties to companies on the manual's expert panels is understandable, given that many of the top experts in the field are involved in drug research.

"I am not surprised that the key people who participate have these kinds of relationships," he said. "They are the major researchers in the field, and are very much on the cutting edge, and will have some kind of relationship -- but there should be full disclosure."

At least one psychiatrist who worked on the current manual criticized the analysis. Nancy Andreasen of the University of Iowa, who headed the schizophrenia team, called the new analysis "very flawed" because it did not distinguish researchers who had ties to industry while serving on the panel from those who formed such ties afterward.

Two out of five researchers on her team had had substantial ties to industry, she said. Andreasen said she would have to check her tax statements to know whether she received money from companies at the time she worked on the panel, but said, "What I do know is that I do almost nothing with drug companies. . . . My area of research is neuroimaging, not psychopharmacology."

The analysis could not determine the extent or timing of the financial ties because it relied on disclosures in journal publications and other venues that do not mention many details, said Sheldon Krimsky, a science policy specialist at Tufts University who also was an author of the new study. Whether the researchers received money before, during or after their service on the panel did not remove the ethical concern, he said.

Krimsky, the author of the book "Science in the Private Interest," added that although more transparency is welcome, the psychiatric association should staff its panels with disinterested experts.

"When someone is establishing a clinical guideline for the bible of psychiatric diagnosis, I would argue they should have no affiliation with the drug companies in those areas where the companies could benefit from those decisions," he said.

Anonymous said...

For the record:

I did not come from nor do I currently belong to a dysfunctional family. Either you misunderstood my post or it was a typo error.

I am not knocking down parents in general. I am knocking down the losers who took over this blog with their own agenda.

They have so much hatred for CAS it is obvious to anyone the reason for this: They have had their children taken away due to their incompetence as parents. Worth noting is when Amanda started this blog it was in hopes to accomplish change--in the process I am sure she did not intend to assist incompetent parents in getting their children back. ***Worth noting when you copied my post you intentionally left out the part referring to how children can sometimes be taken away by CAS wrongly--perhaps you should refer back to the entire statement!***

I realize addiction is an illness. What I am having problems with is the lack of birth control or other means of preventing birth. If an addict wants to kill themselves with drugs go for it--but dont poison what later becomes "foster children"

The general population has seen and heard it all before and most are fed up with the bs--myself included.

Anonymous said...

Take this case for example - I know of a mother who cannot take care of her baby but her family loves her and they want to help and raise the baby - and where is the baby - they are in foster care despite the fact that the family can take care of the baby. Why are they in care? Because a client of the CAS who has been waiting for someone else's baby and "wants" them. Why is being shipped to infertile strangers better then being raised in your own family where one can see your mother and be raised in a normal environment?

The lies of the CAS and the industry behind it are incredible. It is not in a babies best interest to be a cash cow for strangers and this is the type of crap that the Ombudsman could end. The clients of the CAS are not children they are others who want other people's children.

Anonymous said...

The CAS throws them into the home of the clients and then makes excuses why the baby is in care. What they do is they hold it up and then argue in court that the baby is bonded to the strangers while saddling the natural family. It is thievery, and it has happened for decades.

They also do not like men's rights as that also infringes the industry of taking other people's children.

Anonymous said...

I hate to break it to the pro CAS poster, but CAS continues to legally act against families even when it knows its allegations are groundless. The system allows it to do so without any fear of retribution. This is one of the main reasons why the Ombudsman is seeking powers of oversight.

REPLY - and this is 100% true. As it has no oversight it can do what it wants - if it is not stopped a wild caravan of social workers and baby brokers are going to have a field day with open adoption, and it will be just as ugly and dark as the other system ever was. We need the Ombudsman to step in finally.

We do not have a right to other people's children while terminating normal families simply because we "want' a child. It is sinister, the whole thing is evil.

Anonymous said...

Last time I looked, the Ontario government was still clawing back billions of dollars in national child benefits meant for the province's poorest families.

comment - and that too is not fair. Removing supports for families results in more families being destroyed.

Anonymous said...

To the pro CAS poster:

It's odd that you say you're tired of "BS" as you're the only one on this site that engages in it.

Your comment that "children can sometimes be taken away by CAS wrongly" is one more position you have definitely not held ALL ALONG, but as the same sentiments are contained in your statement "There have been cases of CAS involvement with families when it was not warranted," there was no need to repeat your superfluous point. I have no idea why you'd think that's "worth noting" except as a self-absorbed attempt to deflect attention from the fact you cannot respond to the content of any post that discredits your lunacy.

Admitting to being a member of a dysfunctional family was not a typo but grammatical - a fitting outcome of your lame attempt to lob insults. I have no reason not to take you at your word - your posts suggest many characteristics of dysfunction - meanness, pettiness, ignorance, arrogance, bigotry, etc.

To be frank, you know nothing of CAS. Your comment that posts on this site are written by "parents that have had their children taken away due to their incompetence as parents" is an obscene ruse intended to shout down the truth. Those who oppose CAS are objecting to a system of unimaginable corruption - as heinous as slavery, fascism and other forms of oppression. There is no correlation between children in CAS custody and bad parenting - that is precisely the problem. For reasons known only to you, you are in deep denial in spite of several hundred independent posts and newspaper articles that demonstrate how the system commits heinous abuse on innocent parties by the thousands. The people posting make far more sense and are far better parents than a twisted individual like you.

According to you, the root of your psychosis is your wish to prevent birth. What a sick and scary puppy you are. Other women do not require your approval to give birth. Your insane belief that welfare moms are drug addicts who keep producing children does not conform with the facts. There is no need for a multi-billion dollar industry to deal with the few incidents of credible abuse that occur. As one poster mentioned, this bloated and unnecessary industry needs a constant stream of victims to survive. The vast majority of families that are needlessly torn apart (which actually contributes to drug abuse, alcoholism and mental health issues) should have no involvement with CAS whatever.

Funny you would claim the general population is tired of BS - whatever you perceive that to be. The truth is the general population is fed a constant stream of BS by the child-welfare industry. Posts on this site expose this nonsense for what it is. There are many posts by people from the general population on this site - none of whom share your opinions.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to commend the person that has spoken with such passion and insight about the adoption industry.

The time is long overdue for the truth to come out about these people and the harm they do. I hope everyone reads your posts and takes your words to heart.

Anonymous said...

Adopters who abuse and kill is not rare, but what is rare is that the media might be listening. The truth has been buried by an industry that does not want anyone to be heard.

But it is not just the industry - it is Big Brother who funds the CAS to start with. Big Brother is watching all of us. Big Brother does know the truth - after all why would they have implemented section 68 of Bill 210?

Thankfully the NDP have came up with a plan to curb that section with Bill 88.

Unless the public wants children to be sold to the highest bidder by a wild caravan of social workers and baby brokers, then I would suggest supporting Bill 88 before the damage gets worse.

Anonymous said...

According to you, the root of your psychosis is your wish to prevent birth.

LOVE this post and quite brilliant - as those who hate people who can give birth are the root of fear and hatred in the adoption/foster industry. They hate those who can re-reproduce, and they hate those who are fertile. We are giving children to such people and wonder why such numbers of those being abused in care exist?

Anonymous said...

And following that theory the Minister herself was deceived - never get in bed with a baby broker. Not a good political move, but really maybe she did not know. Now that she does support the Ombudsman.

Anonymous said...

Check it out - "How To Find A Child"?

"Adoption is the price of a car, it could be a luxury sedan, or a compact model"?

This is the voice of expert opinion that the government has bedded down with, and they wonder why such concern?

Child protection is not buying babies is it? I don't think so!

Anonymous said...

And let us explore mental illness shall we? Is it normal to hunt down someone else's child and to hire a baby broker to "capture" a child? And is it normal to expect the child to be just like the stranger that captured them? If we want to explore mental illness look at those that wish to take someone else's child simply because they "want" them?

And is it normal for children to live with strangers and to be expected to be just like them?

Are the siblings of Jeffrey in such a situation where they are expected to be the "cure" for strangers after living through such a nightmare? And is burying the pain that they endure by expecting them to call strangers "Mommy" and "Daddy" a cure for what they have lived through? I don't think so - but that is precisely what child welfare is about - using children.

Anonymous said...

Check it out - "How To Find A Child"?

"Adoption is the price of a car, it could be a luxury sedan, or a compact model"?

This is the voice of expert opinion that the government has bedded down with, and they wonder why such concern?

Child protection is not buying babies is it? I don't think so!

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:41:09 PM

SHOULD THE SIBLINGS OF JEFFREY BALDWIN BE COMPARED TO A VEHICLE? No - then email Minister Chambers and encourage her to get out of bed with a baby broker and start doing damage control. It is reasonable to have an inquiry, and it is reasonable to have the Ombudsman have oversight. But is it reasonable to use someone that compares children to a price figure, compared to the automobile industry as being an expert into child welfare? Please people think.

Anonymous said...

I truly feel that they need to get rid of the brokers in this. The last time a political party tried to screw with the CAS victims compliments of a bill that wanted to fine people for even searching for their own flesh and blood they lost. How stupid for them to think we don't count, as we do big time.

Anonymous said...

Do not let your children be bought and sold - support Bill 88. Jeffrey Baldwin was a beautiful, innocent, sweetheart. He I am quite sure did not want to be sold either. Preventing child abuse is a far cry from social cleansing.

He suffered, he suffered so much. He is an angel sent to teach many lessons.

Anonymous said...

A mob of infertile strangers (gay people, not that there is anything wrong with that) mob wants your child. And in between the wacko entitlement problem, and child protection is a huge line.

Who is the government in bed with and why?

Be rid the brokers - why are children for sale? How much are you worth? How much is someone that you love for sale?

Anonymous said...

Hello good people of Ontaro - why are children for sale? Jeffrey Baldwin was so abused in the most horrible ways, but hunting down babies and severing them from nature is also abuse is it not? Do the research.

Anonymous said...

Hello good people of Ontaro - why are children for sale? Jeffrey Baldwin was so abused in the most horrible ways, but hunting down babies and severing them from nature is also abuse is it not? Do the research.earch.

Anonymous said...

This is the type of person that busy babies - freaks that "simply want them".

This couple is not uncommon......

If they'd kept quiet, would they still have the twins?

Nick Paton Walsh in Mold uncovers the curious past of the couple who chose to buy a bigger family, and finds neighbours less than impressed

Special report: babies for sale

Sunday January 21, 2001
The Observer


For Peter Shone, it was not the exorcisms, the menagerie of pets, the wild parties or the caravan park in the garden that was most annoying about living next door to Alan and Judith Kilshaw. 'It's the stray pot-bellied pigs,' the stable owner told The Observer last week. 'They keep escaping from their garden and coming over here to upset my horses.'
For two years, Shone has lived next to the Kilshaws, the couple who last week shot from anonymity in the Welsh village of Buckley to international infamy. The pair gleefully revealed last Tuesday that they had paid £8,200 to adopt twin American girls that had been put up for sale on the internet by their natural mother.

But instead of sharing the happy news, the world was horrified. Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, described the events as 'appalling'.

There was more anger when it emerged that the couple had apparently taken the twins, six-month-old Beverley and Kimberley, from a Californian couple, Richard and Vickie Allen, who believed they were the rightful adoptive parents. Loading the children into a people carrier in San Diego, the Kilshaws had driven more than 2,000 miles across America with the Allens in hot pursuit. After reaching Chicago, they booked flights home to Manchester before the distraught American couple could catch up with them.

It emerged that the Allens had already paid Tina Johnson, the head of an adoption brokers called the Caring Heart Agency, £4,000 for the babies. After two months caring for the twins, the couple claim they were tricked into handing the children back to their natural mother, Tranda Wecker, for a visit. Instead, she gave them to the Kilshaws. It is claimed that the British pair knew the Allens had already paid for the twins.

The 'adoption couple', as they have become known to weary locals in north Wales, will begin their battle for permanent custody of the twins on Tuesday at the High Court in Birmingham. The Allens have also called in lawyers, who said the FBI would see if any US laws had been broken.

Amid growing public disquiet, last Thursday night Flintshire social services, backed by police officers, swooped on the Beaufort Park Hotel near Mold where the Kilshaws were staying, courtesy of a US TV network. After a tense, three-hour confrontation between social workers and the couple, and in the glare of flashing cameras, the sleeping babies were removed under the terms of the 1989 Children Act. Within an hour, the twins were with foster parents - their fourth set of carers in their short lives. Amid chaotic scenes in the cramped hotel, friends of the Kilshaws fled in tears leaving the couple to angrily denounce the authorities who had applied to make the children wards of court.

It was thought yesterday that the Kilshaws had fled to France with the help of a tabloid newspaper, crowning a week of often bizarre and heated media interviews in which the couple had railed against a host of perceived enemies, blaming everyone but themselves for the debacle. They ignored worries that the twins' welfare might have been at stake during the punishing round of radio and TV appearances, a factor that finally persuaded social workers to act.

In a media frenzy, the couple quickly became objects of public hate as lurid details of their chaotic private lives spilled across newspaper front pages and television screens. Journalists fell on north Wales. Callers jammed radio chat shows savaging the couple. Their decision to publicise the adoptions was a PR disaster.

One man, though, had a more simple explanation for the farce. 'The Kilshaws are like kids in a sweetshop,' said Shone. 'If they want something - be it a horse, a car or even a child - they get it, and then they discard it once they're bored.'

Whitehouse Farm is not the typical country retreat of a practising solicitor. The only signs of Alan Kilshaw's reported wealth and respectability come from the Toyota MR2 sports car parked in the drive.

Last week a heap of manure lay near the front door. Shopping bags blew around the lawn and birds perched on two dilapidated cars rusting in the back yard. Through the dusty windows of a ground floor room, a fax machine whirred, yet another request for an interview.

With the couple and the accompanying media circus now gone, neighbours and disgruntled locals yesterday offered a glimpse of the sometimes bizarre life the Kilshaws have led. There was the ever expanding collection of tenants and pets, and a road rage incident in which they were said to have fought bitterly with another driver at the foot of their road.

One man grumbled about the caravan park the couple had opened in their back garden and muttered darkly about Judith. Then there was the 'the milky man', the apparition of an old man in a milkman's coat who the family were convinced haunted their home.

Judith, 47, moved into Whitehouse Farm with Alan, 45, two years ago. Before that she was a divorcee who had found solace in the clubs of Frodsham, Cheshire, near the estate where she lived. Alan was her white knight, whisking her and 18-year-old daughter Caley away to the detached expanses of the farm.

When Alan, Judith, their sons James, seven, and Rupert, four, and Caley moved in to the farmhouse, they held a party for friends and locals. About 50 people drank white wine in a marquee erected in the then immaculate garden. Shone, their new neighbour, felt comfortable enough with the latest additions to Well Street.

Then the pets came. 'They got a couple of dogs within the first month,' said Shone. Their cats quickly grew to 18 in number. They started buying up horses, most of whom were old, tired ponies bought from travellers at the horse market in Beeston, Cheshire. 'When they see an animal they like they just get it,' said Shone. 'Within the first six months they got to be overrun with 13 horses so they had to rent out a new field.'

Then the two pot-bellied pigs arrived, and began roaming the farm freely, often breaking out into the neighbouring property. Shone said Judith did not realise the smell of pigs distressed horses and, when her foals and ponies snorted, she thought they had gone mad.

Shone's stablehands often treated the Kilshaw horses. They recall them being poorly fed and ill. 'They weren't responsible animal owners,' he said.

Besides the occasional altercation, the Kilshaws kept their distance from other villagers. Alan, a director and spokesman for the obscure anti-European political group the Democratic Party, ran his solicitor's practice singlehandedly from the study - known as 'Whitehouse Chambers'.

He specialised in housing law, helping tenants take their landlords to court.

When the Kilshaws did socialise, it did not go that well. Twice, Judith went for a drink in the British Eighteen Club in Buckley, a reserved bar for ex-servicemen where even the stand-up comedians are asked not to use 'bad' language.

Judith first graced the club 18 months ago and, after a few drinks, was asked to empty her glass and leave after a complaint about language from a female member.

About a year later, Judith returned with Caley, who was then underage. After a few drinks she was again asked to leave after fighting in the ladies' toilets with a younger woman. She has not returned.

One of the Kilshaws' later parties at the farm - with a tarts and vicars theme - ended with equal embarrassment when police were called after a complaint about the noise. One partygoer recalls the Kilshaws taking a fair time to realise that the officers were genuine, and not stripogram entertainment ordered by their guests. Later, Judith added to her increasingly bizarre reputation in the village when she called in paranormal investigators after a vision of an old man in a dairyman's coat which one son had nicknamed 'milky man'. The investigation was even filmed.

The procurement of the twins was supposed to be the final step on a long and difficult journey for the Kilshaws, anxious to expand their family yet further.

Judith had had a lengthy search to overcome fertility problems. She looked for children to adopt in Thailand and China. She tried IVF a number of times. She admitted to one newspaper that she had given her husband's sperm to a friend who was having problems conceiving after giving birth to a stillborn child.

But the most curious attempt to conceive involved the help of her estranged eldest daughter. Even she was prepared yesterday to dish the dirt on her mother.

Louisa Richardson, 22, moved out of the former family home after the failure of Judith's first marriage to civil servant Mike Richardson. Yesterday she spoke of how she had raised a child without the support of her mother in a freezing cold caravan.

Yet this turn of events had not stopped Judith from making an astonishing request of her eldest child. Kilshaw asked her daughter if she could 'rent' her womb, and so have Louisa be the surrogate mother to her stepfather's child. Louisa says she was offered £3,000, and declined.

Flintshire social services declined to comment as to whether the Kilshaws had requested permission to adopt before, but it is understood the couple were older than the usual limits allow. They had certainly not been open about their new American arrivals. One of the lodgers who lives in their farmhouse told The Observer that he thought the twins were Judith's granddaughters, and not her adopted children. 'The first I knew about the adoption it was in the papers,' he said.

At 6pm last Friday night, a thick mist surrounded the phalanx of satellite dishes and TV crews at the Beaufort Park Hotel. The Kilshaws had been taking interviews from dawn till dusk. A policewoman arrived and knocked on their door. 'Mr Kilshaw, it's the police,' she said. There was no reply. It appeared the couple had forced the lock on the hotel room window, escaped on to the wall below and sneaked off into the arms of a Sunday tabloid, which has paid them handsomely for their story.

Anonymous said...

This is the "type" that wants your children, to such a degree that they will consult those that will find them. The government is in bed with people who "defended" the buyers of the innocent babies.

Hunt them down, is the mantra. Think this is weird - check out those that want other people's children and ask if they are playing with a full deck, and better ask who is brokering the card game - where human beings are bought and sold daily.

FROM LONDON, ENGLAND.........
If they'd kept quiet, would they still have the twins?

Nick Paton Walsh in Mold uncovers the curious past of the couple who chose to buy a bigger family, and finds neighbours less than impressed

Special report: babies for sale

Sunday January 21, 2001
The Observer


For Peter Shone, it was not the exorcisms, the menagerie of pets, the wild parties or the caravan park in the garden that was most annoying about living next door to Alan and Judith Kilshaw. 'It's the stray pot-bellied pigs,' the stable owner told The Observer last week. 'They keep escaping from their garden and coming over here to upset my horses.'
For two years, Shone has lived next to the Kilshaws, the couple who last week shot from anonymity in the Welsh village of Buckley to international infamy. The pair gleefully revealed last Tuesday that they had paid £8,200 to adopt twin American girls that had been put up for sale on the internet by their natural mother.

But instead of sharing the happy news, the world was horrified. Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, described the events as 'appalling'.

There was more anger when it emerged that the couple had apparently taken the twins, six-month-old Beverley and Kimberley, from a Californian couple, Richard and Vickie Allen, who believed they were the rightful adoptive parents. Loading the children into a people carrier in San Diego, the Kilshaws had driven more than 2,000 miles across America with the Allens in hot pursuit. After reaching Chicago, they booked flights home to Manchester before the distraught American couple could catch up with them.

It emerged that the Allens had already paid Tina Johnson, the head of an adoption brokers called the Caring Heart Agency, £4,000 for the babies. After two months caring for the twins, the couple claim they were tricked into handing the children back to their natural mother, Tranda Wecker, for a visit. Instead, she gave them to the Kilshaws. It is claimed that the British pair knew the Allens had already paid for the twins.

The 'adoption couple', as they have become known to weary locals in north Wales, will begin their battle for permanent custody of the twins on Tuesday at the High Court in Birmingham. The Allens have also called in lawyers, who said the FBI would see if any US laws had been broken.

Amid growing public disquiet, last Thursday night Flintshire social services, backed by police officers, swooped on the Beaufort Park Hotel near Mold where the Kilshaws were staying, courtesy of a US TV network. After a tense, three-hour confrontation between social workers and the couple, and in the glare of flashing cameras, the sleeping babies were removed under the terms of the 1989 Children Act. Within an hour, the twins were with foster parents - their fourth set of carers in their short lives. Amid chaotic scenes in the cramped hotel, friends of the Kilshaws fled in tears leaving the couple to angrily denounce the authorities who had applied to make the children wards of court.

It was thought yesterday that the Kilshaws had fled to France with the help of a tabloid newspaper, crowning a week of often bizarre and heated media interviews in which the couple had railed against a host of perceived enemies, blaming everyone but themselves for the debacle. They ignored worries that the twins' welfare might have been at stake during the punishing round of radio and TV appearances, a factor that finally persuaded social workers to act.

In a media frenzy, the couple quickly became objects of public hate as lurid details of their chaotic private lives spilled across newspaper front pages and television screens. Journalists fell on north Wales. Callers jammed radio chat shows savaging the couple. Their decision to publicise the adoptions was a PR disaster.

One man, though, had a more simple explanation for the farce. 'The Kilshaws are like kids in a sweetshop,' said Shone. 'If they want something - be it a horse, a car or even a child - they get it, and then they discard it once they're bored.'

Whitehouse Farm is not the typical country retreat of a practising solicitor. The only signs of Alan Kilshaw's reported wealth and respectability come from the Toyota MR2 sports car parked in the drive.

Last week a heap of manure lay near the front door. Shopping bags blew around the lawn and birds perched on two dilapidated cars rusting in the back yard. Through the dusty windows of a ground floor room, a fax machine whirred, yet another request for an interview.

With the couple and the accompanying media circus now gone, neighbours and disgruntled locals yesterday offered a glimpse of the sometimes bizarre life the Kilshaws have led. There was the ever expanding collection of tenants and pets, and a road rage incident in which they were said to have fought bitterly with another driver at the foot of their road.

One man grumbled about the caravan park the couple had opened in their back garden and muttered darkly about Judith. Then there was the 'the milky man', the apparition of an old man in a milkman's coat who the family were convinced haunted their home.

Judith, 47, moved into Whitehouse Farm with Alan, 45, two years ago. Before that she was a divorcee who had found solace in the clubs of Frodsham, Cheshire, near the estate where she lived. Alan was her white knight, whisking her and 18-year-old daughter Caley away to the detached expanses of the farm.

When Alan, Judith, their sons James, seven, and Rupert, four, and Caley moved in to the farmhouse, they held a party for friends and locals. About 50 people drank white wine in a marquee erected in the then immaculate garden. Shone, their new neighbour, felt comfortable enough with the latest additions to Well Street.

Then the pets came. 'They got a couple of dogs within the first month,' said Shone. Their cats quickly grew to 18 in number. They started buying up horses, most of whom were old, tired ponies bought from travellers at the horse market in Beeston, Cheshire. 'When they see an animal they like they just get it,' said Shone. 'Within the first six months they got to be overrun with 13 horses so they had to rent out a new field.'

Then the two pot-bellied pigs arrived, and began roaming the farm freely, often breaking out into the neighbouring property. Shone said Judith did not realise the smell of pigs distressed horses and, when her foals and ponies snorted, she thought they had gone mad.

Shone's stablehands often treated the Kilshaw horses. They recall them being poorly fed and ill. 'They weren't responsible animal owners,' he said.

Besides the occasional altercation, the Kilshaws kept their distance from other villagers. Alan, a director and spokesman for the obscure anti-European political group the Democratic Party, ran his solicitor's practice singlehandedly from the study - known as 'Whitehouse Chambers'.

He specialised in housing law, helping tenants take their landlords to court.

When the Kilshaws did socialise, it did not go that well. Twice, Judith went for a drink in the British Eighteen Club in Buckley, a reserved bar for ex-servicemen where even the stand-up comedians are asked not to use 'bad' language.

Judith first graced the club 18 months ago and, after a few drinks, was asked to empty her glass and leave after a complaint about language from a female member.

About a year later, Judith returned with Caley, who was then underage. After a few drinks she was again asked to leave after fighting in the ladies' toilets with a younger woman. She has not returned.

One of the Kilshaws' later parties at the farm - with a tarts and vicars theme - ended with equal embarrassment when police were called after a complaint about the noise. One partygoer recalls the Kilshaws taking a fair time to realise that the officers were genuine, and not stripogram entertainment ordered by their guests. Later, Judith added to her increasingly bizarre reputation in the village when she called in paranormal investigators after a vision of an old man in a dairyman's coat which one son had nicknamed 'milky man'. The investigation was even filmed.

The procurement of the twins was supposed to be the final step on a long and difficult journey for the Kilshaws, anxious to expand their family yet further.

Judith had had a lengthy search to overcome fertility problems. She looked for children to adopt in Thailand and China. She tried IVF a number of times. She admitted to one newspaper that she had given her husband's sperm to a friend who was having problems conceiving after giving birth to a stillborn child.

But the most curious attempt to conceive involved the help of her estranged eldest daughter. Even she was prepared yesterday to dish the dirt on her mother.

Louisa Richardson, 22, moved out of the former family home after the failure of Judith's first marriage to civil servant Mike Richardson. Yesterday she spoke of how she had raised a child without the support of her mother in a freezing cold caravan.

Yet this turn of events had not stopped Judith from making an astonishing request of her eldest child. Kilshaw asked her daughter if she could 'rent' her womb, and so have Louisa be the surrogate mother to her stepfather's child. Louisa says she was offered £3,000, and declined.

Flintshire social services declined to comment as to whether the Kilshaws had requested permission to adopt before, but it is understood the couple were older than the usual limits allow. They had certainly not been open about their new American arrivals. One of the lodgers who lives in their farmhouse told The Observer that he thought the twins were Judith's granddaughters, and not her adopted children. 'The first I knew about the adoption it was in the papers,' he said.

At 6pm last Friday night, a thick mist surrounded the phalanx of satellite dishes and TV crews at the Beaufort Park Hotel. The Kilshaws had been taking interviews from dawn till dusk. A policewoman arrived and knocked on their door. 'Mr Kilshaw, it's the police,' she said. There was no reply. It appeared the couple had forced the lock on the hotel room window, escaped on to the wall below and sneaked off into the arms of a Sunday tabloid, which has paid them handsomely for their story.

Anonymous said...

The Kilshaws are a great example of who "wants" your children. The mentally ill, are those that buy children, and the mentally ill are those that sell them too - if we want to check reality.

Anonymous said...

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that people who survived the foster/adoption industry do not support it in the future. And that they support the Ombudsman and real change.

It is only the industry that wants to prevent real oversight - the CAS, the brokers, and the defense lawyers.

Anonymous said...

oh and of course as well the "mob" of infertile strangers, gay couples (not that it is a problem) and anyone who "wants" a child that DOES NOT support the Ombudsman or oversight?

It is an industry.

Anonymous said...

Too bad you cannot read or understand what you read.

If you could most of your statements against me would not exist.

Go ahead and support mothers who choose to use drugs but not birth control at the same time.

Talk about baby brokers? These are the women who are providing their bread and butter. When the baby is born drug addicted it is grabbed by CAS.

I am sure you must be aware of this.

Your statements are laughable and contradicting. On one hand you condemn gays and adoption but out of the other side of your mouth you state there is nothing wrong with gays adopting.

I hope you enjoy your perch on top of the fence.

Anonymous said...

To the Pro CAS poster:

The following article was posted on another board on this site. If you missed it, it's a "must-read" for you:

Foster Care for Phantom Kids
April 26, 2006

A lawsuit alleges that a California child protection agency bills the state and federal governments for care of children who do not exist. This story, withheld until authenticated, has now been carried by the San Jose Mercury-News and the CBS TV channel in San Francisco, KPIX.



SANTA CLARA COUNTY NAMED IN $400 MILLION FALSE CLAIMS DAMAGES SUIT OVER DFCS FRAUD

SUIT ALLEGES CPS CHARGED STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR NON EXISTENT CHILDREN

After a Federal False Claims Act suit was unsealed last week, the County of Santa Clara has been served with a summons to appear on charges of defrauding State and Federal Social Security funds for Foster Care.

The suit alleges that the Department of Family and Children's Services regularly bills the State and Federal Governments for managing case files of children that do not exist. The attorney for the case estimated the damages and fraud at about $400 million dollars in State and Federal funds.

The Whistleblower in this case reportedly has copies of documents that show DFCS Management and Supervisors ordered Social Workers to bill for 5 children in one case rather than for the two children that the mother actually gave birth to.

Dr. Karl Hoffower, the President of the South Bay Chapter of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights said, "We have been receiving complaints against DFCS for several years. Parents have brought evidence of improper conduct on the part of Social Workers that never made sense until now. By this suit it appears that DFCS Social Workers have a monetary motivation behind their actions."

Dr. Hoffower went on to say, "This lawsuit could also be the explanation for why 40% of the case files in the County's 2003 'Children of Color Study*', that investigated DFCS on charges of racism, were missing. While it has always seemed odd that 40% of the DFCS files were never found for that study, this lawsuit might have the best explanation for that blunder.they just never existed to begin with."

The suit further charges that several psychologists have assisted in defrauding the State and Federal programs by billing for therapy sessions that never took place. The Whistleblower alleges that DFCS contracts with psychologists to perform therapy sessions to children in the Foster Care System. Those sessions were reimbursed via a prepaid contract with the County, yet the Whistleblower's claims no refund was made when the sessions did not take place. In fact the suit claims to have evidence that DFCS and the psychologists agreed that the money didn't have to be paid back.

The former Ombudsman and current Legal Redress Officer for the Silicon Valley NAACP, Ms. Nedra Jones said, "I knew there must be some type of fraud going on with DFCS. This suit validates the complaints we tried to bring to the attention of the County back in 2004. The deceitful actions and callous disregard for the truth was a daily fight we experienced while trying to work with Social Workers and DFCS Management. No wonder we had a hard time trying to help right the wrongs of DFCS, they didn't want us looking too far into their cases for fear of being found out."

Pro CAS - did you know that in Ontario, social workers regularly write glowing reports on the basis of meetings and monitoring sessions that have never occurred or that CAS regularly loses files and removes false affidavits from family court records. The situation is corrupt beyond your wildest dreams and those dreaded welfare moms have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Anonymous said...

What the pro CAS poster seems unable to fathom is that CAS groundlessly claims babies are born with drug addictions or FAS in order to abduct them. The statistics do not support CAS.

These agencies are incapable of assessing the weather. I have no idea why you'd trust the word of completely unaccountable organizations that have been shown to continually engage in dishonesty, negligence and incompetence. The tragic case of Jeffrey Baldwin is only one example. There are hundreds of others on this site.

Anonymous said...

Pro CAS: I believe it is you that cannot read. The poster is stating he/she has nothing against gays but opposes them adopting other people's children.

This is a valid point - the relation is completely unnatural. Besides that, gay culture exhibits a high percentage of homosexual pedophilia - political correctness aside. Do you have no concerns about placing children in such an unnatural relationship when the importance of natural parents to a child's development has been so strongly documented?

Anonymous said...

Pro CAS: I believe it is you that cannot read. The poster is stating he/she has nothing against gays but opposes them adopting other people's children.

EXACTLY - there is already a huge number of people that feel "entitled" to capture other people's children and it is bad enough without gay people also adopting the same type of attitude and crusade about this. The industry is catering to other people to provide products for a market. The entitlement issue is a huge problem with the foster/adoption industry. People need to learn that they are not entitled to take someone's chld simply as they "want" them. Children have the right to be with their normal and natural families -and should not be used as pawns for profit in a filthy industry that is totally unaccountable. The highest bidder realm of this must end.

My feeling is that the CAS is quite opposed to the Ombudsman as it will considerably hamper their business. Too bad for them it is despicable that children are being taken for no other reason then to meet the needs of others, and I might add at their personal expense.

Anonymous said...

Pro CAS - did you know that in Ontario, social workers regularly write glowing reports on the basis of meetings and monitoring sessions that have never occurred or that CAS regularly loses files and removes false affidavits from family court records. The situation is corrupt beyond your wildest dreams and those dreaded welfare moms have absolutely nothing to do with it.

reply - well said, and the pro-CAS poster is trying to shift this into attempting to get people to hate single mothers, while totally ignoring the real issues. Surely the person is in the industry. The other thing is that while CAS is under fire, the brokers are as well - and they are just as manipulative as the CAS is.

Destroy the family, get the product, hide, conceal and run ........

Anonymous said...

Has it ever crossed your mind how these drug-addicted mothers hit the radar screen in the first place?

Well since you are so ill-informed I will educate you. The mother shows up at the hospital ready to deliver her drug-addicted baby. Some have to have a c-section as they are too stoned to deliver. The doctors and nurses are not fools--they know an addict when they see one. They do blood tests on the baby and.....surprise surprise the baby has "mommy's" drugs in his/her blood too.
So then CAS is called in and takes charge of the baby.

Too bad mommy didnt think of that when she got high or before she had sex.

Birth control is prevalent in Canada--no excuse.

You keep advocating for drug-addicts to keep their children all you want. I think you should attempt to circulate a petition with your tainted views and see how many signatures you DON'T receive.

Anonymous said...

to 9:51 05 on Wed. YOU ARE RIGHT ON , I wish I knew who you are your right on always you can tell who rights what.your comments are good and right on.

Anonymous said...

The petitions have over 5,000 signatures they have been presented, read the news. There is one being passed around Ottawa this week.
We are appalled at your ignorance.
This is not how it happens at all.
If you choice to believe your own bull shit, go blog it else where.

Or I invite you to meet me, at the Ottawa General Hospital, have me paged. I will walk you though the steps. As I am an obstetrican,
I have signed the petition.

Contact Mother Risk at the hospital for sick children, and ask for stats.

And allow me to tell you about the errors that happen all to often in hospitals, the non drug addicted moms, infants wrongly being given narcotics. And children taken right from the mothers breast.
Drug and alcohol abuse stats are down in Ontario, we hardly ever see young single mothers that actually have abused during pregnancy.
To find my contact, write Citizens for Morality,
contact Dr. Dolores Scheri.
We do not appreciate are professions being used for another's agenda. We are also duty bound to report concerns of child abuse and neglect, I have never had to make such a report, yet children are being removed at birth, and almost all of it is unfounded.

Anonymous said...

To the above poster (Thursday, April 27, 2006 4:53:05 PM)

God bless you! Thank you so much for your post.

Anonymous said...

To the intelligent doctor that just posted - thank you. I believe you over the pro-CAS poster any day of the week. The poster hates mothers - and only those who benefit from destroying families have that level of hatred. Or only those who are infertile and who despise others who can actually have children.

CAS gives children to such people continually - then people wonder why such abuse in foster care and adoption exists?

Anonymous said...

Pro CAS:

You have much to learn from the doctor's post. Please compare her comments with your lame excuse to have a wealth of information from sources that cannot be divulged (remember saying that?) and your arrogant refusal to disclose your personal background.

This is went straight through your heart - revealling what a pathetic individual you are - please have the good sense to realize it.

Anonymous said...

Those who oppose CAS are objecting to a system of unimaginable corruption - as heinous as slavery, fascism and other forms of oppression. There is no correlation between children in CAS custody and bad parenting - that is precisely the problem.

WELL SAID - and so true, and the only people who are denying this fact are those who wish to continue the filthy adoption industry, and those who benefit from it. Slavery is a good example to compare what this industry is really about, where children are sold into servitude for desperate infertile couples, gay couples and anyone that "wants" a child.

Do the brokers ever turn anyone down? Are you kidding? - No they don't it is their pay cheque to capture children and to deliver them to strangers. It is despicable.

Anonymous said...

Is the doctor who wrote this piece Dolores Scheri?

Please advise.

Anonymous said...

I just checked with The College of Physicians and surgeons and there is no doctor with the name Dolores Scheri listed.

Please clarify if you actually exist. I will try the Ottawa General also.

I have a problem with this situation--assuming it even exists.

Anonymous said...

I would lve to discuss this with the "good doctor". But how can I page you at Ottawa General if I do not know your name?

Anonymous said...

The poster is affiliated with Ottawa General Hospital. Dr. Sicheri is not.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Sicheri I see is in Windsor.

Now where and who is this doctor that wrote this piece? I would love to have a one on one conversation with him/her.

Surely she will put her name out there. How can I page her if I dont know her name?

Anonymous said...

Pro CAS:

Dr Sicheri is a highly respected oncologist that has been active in CAS issues for many years. She very much exists.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you ask Dr. Sicheri when you speak to her?

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what this CAS poster doesn't get - the doctor clearly stated her place of employment and specifically mentioned obtaining her contact information through Citizen's for Social Morality. For several reasons, she may not wish to broadcast her name on the Internet.

So why does the CAS poster immediately begin to manipulate the facts stating:

Now where and who is this doctor that wrote this piece? I would love to have a one on one conversation with him/her.

"How can I page you at Ottawa General if I do not know your name?"

"Surely she will put her name out there. How can I page her if I dont know her name?"

This CAS person is some piece of work. Even she must realize she's grasping at any straw she can find.

Anonymous said...

First and foremost I question why if a Dr. actually wrote this piece they will not put their name to it. Dr.'s credentials are public information but without a name it is meaningless. I am hardly going to contact another doctor to ask them who wrote on this blog.

It makes me wonder (like a lot of what is posted) is this true.?

And once again I have come to the same conclusion.

There are many liars and manipulators on this site. There are also many who have very limited education. Amongst everything else they cannot even get TV programing straight ie: Andre Morin on Rogers TV was not talking about CAS but MPAC. Wrong organization! They plan a rally and then don't even show up!

If this is any indication of who supports your cause good luck--you are going to need it.

Anonymous said...

yes we know one another, Dr. Scheri, group is made up of
people in the medical profession, researchers, a few I also know that post,the murder of Jeffrey Baldwin touch many of us.Citizens for Morality,has a large member ship, we all would like to see major changes made to Child Protection, accountability, and a family centred program are just a few.
Dr.M. Aubin

Anonymous said...

I think the CAS poster is manipulating this as they are under heavy fire, and are being sued in a number of different cases, numerous groups are after them, the Ombudsman wants proper and responsible oversight - and what are they doing here? Running for cover.

Keep running CAS poster as the truth will be heard one day in a full inquiry.

I too have heard of this doctor and I know someone who is friends with her. She is a caring, intelligent person who is quite aware of various things that are going on.

In the past few weeks if we are keeping track 4 lawsuits have emerged against the CAS - and that is not even including what was going on before that.

And as to the pro-CAS poster HOW DARE THEY SCRUTINIZE people who care about Jeffrey Baldwin a precious little boy who was murdered due to the CCAS, and how dare they attack others who are standing up for justice, truth and humanity. Jeffrey is not the only victim of this agency, and several groups are dedicated to stopping the further abuse of these agencies. If the pro-CAS poster does not like it then too bad.

The CAS will answer to the victims of this system and be prevented from the ongoing destruction of families to provide products for others.

Anonymous said...

The pro CAS poster really gives you a glimpse into the mind of a baby broker - it is quite scary to say the least.

Anonymous said...

To the pro CAS poster get off this site - this site is for Jeffrey Baldwin to overhaul the CAS - you do not belong here. You are insulting and rude to others, wildly fanatical in posting hateful statements, and continue to slam anyone who is scrutinizing the CAS. You are quite sick to defend what happened to Jeffrey, and in dire need of help. Who could defend the CCAS in this very sad case.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Aubin, I have never heard of you but I am quite glad to see a medical professional coming on board to change this system - I applaud all that are trying to change the system especially for Jeffrey Baldwin. He does not have a voice, and we need to be the voice of reason to change this Godforsaken system.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Edward, Napke
supporter, of over sight for the Children's Aid society's. A system that is not only accountable , also less advisial to the family's and children the serve.We also would like to see an inquest into all children aid society's practices.

Anonymous said...

One day, you may realize that what others are telling you is the truth and that parents and children abused by CAS have not independently made up stories with identical themes regarding CAS' willful dishonesty, maliciousness, lies, negligence and incompetence.

VERY WELL SAID - even the best fiction writer could not dream of the things that have went on with the CAS. And indeed in comparing notes people have without question discovered themes that the CAS is dishonest, malicious, negligent, and incompetent to say the very least.

Anonymous said...

Physicians for Social Responsibility
support changes to the Children's Aid Society's, and at least oversight.
is the CAS going to come hunt us all down, because we are going public?
No one is immune from the abuse of power this government has given to non government agency, funded almost entirely by taxes.

We do not condone the abuse of children.
We have concerns with the definitions of child at risk, best interest of the child, child in need of protection,
large numbers of children have been apprehended, most in care because of poverty it is past time the politics and child protection separated, keeping children with bio logic family should always be the goal.

Anonymous said...

I see myself as a "social activist." I am leading a movement that views government intrusion on the family with skepticism. I am privy to the "darkest secrets" of this government policy. People from all over the Province have talked to me about their experience. I have gotten the whole picture. The community is very aware of the problem, but it feels powerless. The community watches and admires my bravery (maybe my foolhardiness, too) as I talk about the problem as I try to take it out of its dark closet. The problem crosses a broad social economic class, from the welfare class to highly skilled professionals, even the most privileged.

The social welfare system is an inverse pyramid that requires a new, daily supply of our children to run its machinery. Its appetite is insatiable.

I am an adoptive white mother of 2 grown African-Canadian boys, leading a movement for the biological rights of the family. I have always considered myself a "Social Democrat." I have never voted Republican or PC. Oddly enough this movement has put me in bed with the right wing. I am puzzled that people want to cut out my writings and read them at PC meetings. I am equally surprised to find myself on the same page as the John Birch Society. I think my activism cuts across all political sectors. The family unit belongs to all of us.

Government has created a social welfare industry that it cannot control, a monster that will swallow up the government that created it. The "best interests of children and families" are irrelevant to it. It has to do with jobs, careers and money, most of all money. After reading the minutes of the Ontario Legislature, I came to the conclusion that this is a conspiracy at the highest level of government. It is a conspiracy that takes aim at the poor, single, uneducated parent, the vulnerable. It targets the immigrants, the minorities and the disabled. It has nothing to do with the "best interests of the child." It is a policy that leaves children in drug houses and violent/dangerous situations because the "workers" are too afraid to enter those homes. It is a system that uses the "Jeffrey Baldwin" situations to call for an increase its own absolute power, wanting more tax dollars and freedom from judicial review. It is a system that refuses to admit that it was its own CAS agency that screwed up.

The present child welfare industry sees gay couples as a ready and willing market for this glut of children, as a way to download the business problem of too many crown wards. Without a doubt, many gay couples will do a good job. Gays should have their legal rights but why "marriage" and not "civil union." Like black children in white families, these children in gay homes will grow into adults somewhat disconnected from the mainstream of their society. Within the extended family, adoption has always had a stigma attached to it. I have personally felt the pain.

I have similar problems with "euthanasia." Why legalize it? Modern medicine already helps patients to die. I have only to anticipate the next step, that some government bureaucrat will decide who shall live and who shall die, who is productive and who is not.

"... we must be wary of those who are too willing to end the lives of the elderly and the ill. If we ever decide that a poor quality of life justifies ending that life, we have taken a step down a slippery slope that places all of us in danger. There is a difference between allowing nature to take its course and actively assisting death. The call for euthanasia surfaces in our society periodically, as it is doing now under the guise of "death with dignity" or assisted suicide. Euthanasia is a concept, it seems to me, that is in direct conflict with a religious and ethical tradition in which the human race is presented with " a blessing and a curse, life and death," and we are instructed '...therefore, to choose life." I believe 'euthanasia' lies outside the commonly held life-centered values of the West and cannot be allowed without incurring great social and personal tragedy. This is not merely an intellectual conundrum. This issue involves actual human beings at risk... -- C. Everett Koop, M.D. *

Is it in society's best interest to try to preserve the biological family structure? The unraveling of the rights of children from those of parents makes children mere objects, properties of the State, to be moved around at will. This may occur for just cause or simply to meet a quota of children in care or for retribution against the parent as in the Carline VandenElsen case. Remember the Agency must have sufficient numbers of children in care to pay its own bills.

Government will take the child-parent loyalty and convert it to the child-state loyalty. Parents will be reduced to mere incubators with the State assuming the parental role, parens patriae. Will the State do a better job than the parent? We have the example of the residential schools in the aboriginal community. Did government help the aboriginal family? The aboriginal family is still continuing to disintegrate before our eyes. The orphan trains of the 19th and 20th Centuries represent another government policy gone awry. It targeted poor, immigrant children to execute its own manifest destiny. In today's world, we see the continual interference of government in health care, expensive and inefficient. Government's policy on environmental issues is smoke and mirrors. Is the water we drink, safe? Is the air we breathe, clean?

What can we do as concerned citizens to prevent this new, upcoming fiasco? Government wants "Leave it to Beaver" families." Government sets a standard that few can meet because parents and children are imperfect human beings. Government is using legislation to micro-manage human behaviour. How silly! Are we machines? One cannot legislate human behaviour. Throughout history, religion has served as the vehicle to modify human behaviour. Is government legislation going to supplant religious training?

Government (McGinty's Best Start program) is already planning to be in your home from your child's birth and to age 6 when he enters school. Then the school system takes over. Similar home visitation programs are springing up all over North America. They are an intrusion into the privacy of your home, Government supervising its investment in its (your) child.

Everything leads back to the UN Convention of the Child. Canada uses this treaty to carry out its agenda but it continually violates the spirit of the Convention. Only children without parents are entitled to government support for health, food, education, clothing and shelter. It is not the right of all children. Why does child poverty continue to escalate? Are we going to produce a new generation of adults who will work hard and respect their elders? Will these children be simply self-centered and self-serving? Through her writings, Hilary Clinton as a spokesperson for this enhanced parental role for government says, "It takes a village to raise a child." She goes on about what a wonderful job she and Bill have done with their daughter Chelsea while most of North America yawns and rolls their eyes.

Are our religious leaders not afraid that government will usurp their moral authority? These religious leaders will find themselves gone, as Government tries to legislate morality. Will this work? History tells us, not.

I stand convinced that the government's intrusion into the family will lead to sedition. There is a growing, vocal reform movement. Can it be stopped? I think, not. In my lifetime I have seen the Fascists and Communists come and go. Religion will now have to out-survive the totalitarian Socialist state.

Dolores A. Sicheri, MD
Lakeshore, Ontario
October 26, 2005

Anonymous said...

Wally & Debby They were accused of child abuse but their son really had “brittle bone disease” For more information please log onto: www.protectourfamilies.com and www.oif.org
Linda Was falsely accused of having a disorder called Munchausen-By-Proxy For more information please log onto: www.ic-network.com
Sarah Linda’s daughter
Jonathan Arden, MD. A forensic pathologist and medical expert who specializes in assessing child abuse and neglect cases and feels the system needs reform.
Kim Hart Executive Director of the National Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center and trial consultant For more information please log onto: www.kimhart.com and www.falseallegation.org


There are now hundreds, of doctors, nurses,ex social workers. in Ontario, that would like to see Children's Aid have over sight.
Please read the petition so many signed.
This is from the Montel Willams show, there are problems in the UK US and Canada. It is time to truly protect children, and change this large abusive system

Anonymous said...

What has been described has already happened - people were left barren, and stripped of their own babies to provide a market for others. We need an inquiry, this group is one of many who want one.

http://www.originscanada.org/

Anonymous said...

I am sure the social worker or lawyer has a problem, with the number of mandated reporters coming forward,
Please advice
what is your problem?

Anonymous said...

Pro CAS:

Your worse than an obnoxious ten-year old sucking-out of a game that is lost.

The 7:56:14 post answered your predictable attempt to twist and manipulate your way out of the situation. That post pointed out:

"the doctor clearly stated her place of employment and specifically mentioned obtaining her contact information through Citizen's for Social Morality. For several reasons, she may not wish to broadcast her name on the Internet."

An hour later, the best excuse you could come up with was:

"I question why if a Dr. actually wrote this piece they will not put their name to it."

Is there any limit to your stupidity - the answer is right in front of you and still try to spin your way out of it. I could also have bet my mortgage that you would say anything to weasel your way out of contacting Dr. Sicheri. And you did - putting your foot even further into your throat in the process:

"Dr.'s credentials are public information but without a name it is meaningless. I am hardly going to contact another doctor to ask them who wrote on this blog."

Why wouldn't you. That's exactly what the doctor asked you to do - and for very legitimate reasons. Dr Sicheri is a highly credible and well-known opponent of CAS abuse. Your lame excuse is utterly transparent - and it was you that had the audacity to tell others to Deny, Deny, Deny?

You have no more sense than a bar room drunk that has be pummelled and keeps coming back for more. Don't you know when to shut up? Your actions are pathetic.

After such blatant attempts to manipulate your way out of your predicament, it is absurd for you (of all people) to allege there are "liars and manipulators on this site." You win the award in both those categories hands-down.

Predictably, you're left raving, spewing some of the pettiest and meaningless insults I've ever heard. Can't get TV programming straight? My God, is there no limit to your insanity? Coming from someone whose ignorant opinions have been repeatedly exposed, this statement is mind-boggling.

As you have found out too late, there are many highly educated people on this site. However, that is hardly a prerequisite for understanding CAS corruption and fighting to end it. You fall into neither of these categories. The ignorance you exhibit is in a class of its own. Hopefully, the "ominous" tone of your sign off means you're about to run back under the rock that you came from.

Anonymous said...

court rules in Young's favour Last updated Jan 27 2006 04:50 PM NST
CBC News The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in favour of Wanda Young, the student who claimed her reputation was destroyed when Memorial University officials reported her to authorities for suspected child abuse.

The country's highest court ruled Friday that Young is entitled to collect $839,000 that had been awarded in damages in a previous court case.


Wanda Young

The court also awarded Young costs, which her lawyer says brings the value of the judgment to more than $1 million.

Anonymous said...

Inquiry into Cornwall child abuse allegations to begin February 13




CORNWALL, Ont. (CP) -- A public inquiry into the handling of allegations of systemic child sexual abuse in this eastern Ontario city is slated to begin Feb. 13.
The long-awaited investigation is expected to take much of the year and involve more than a dozen parties eager to get to the bottom of the case, said Peter Engelmann, lead counsel for the commission.

He said the first phase of the two-part inquiry will look at how various institutions responded to claims that community leaders were involved in the alleged abuse of several young people in the 1990s.
"It could be police, it could be probation, it could be the Children's Aid Society, it could be a school board for example, any public institution," Engelmann said of those included in the inquiry's scope.
Parties with standing at the hearings include Ontario's attorney general, the Cornwall Police Service, Ontario Provincial Police, the local Children's Aid Society and the local diocese of the Catholic Church.
They also include individuals who had been accused of abuse, such as Rev. Charles MacDonald and lawyer Jacques Leduc, and groups representing alleged victims of abuse.
Police have spent years trying to get to the bottom of the allegations, laying 114 charges against 15 high-profile men including doctors, lawyers and Catholic priests in an investigation named Project Truth.
But in the end, the courts convicted just one man, and police said they found no evidence that a pedophile ring operated in the city.
The Ontario government called the public inquiry, to be led by Commissioner Normand Glaude, in an effort to bring some closure to the divided community.
Engelmann said the second phase of the inquiry deals with measures geared towards healing and reconciliation, and will look at how institutions should handle abuse allegations in the future.
"Together, this inquiry, in phase one and phase two, has as one of its goals to ensure that this type of situation doesn't arise again," Engelmann said.

WHO is abusing the children?

Anonymous said...

Hilarious. The CAS poster implies Dr. Sicheri doesn't exist, then runs for her life when she discovers Dr. Sicheri is real.

Anonymous said...

ADVANCED SEARCH


home currentissue Pastissues collections help search nothing

Vacuum surrounds use of Ontario wards of state as research subjects

Date: June 24, 2003 Time: 1:50 pm

Were any privacy right violated when researchers were allowed to see the medical files of Ontario girls who are wards of the Children's Aid Society (CAS)?

The researchers and the CAS say no, because the research was conducted with approval from the Research Ethics board (REB) at McMaster University and the researchers signed an oath of confidentiality before opening the files.

But even if the actions had been unethical, little could have been done to stop them because in Ontario a legislative vacuum surrounds the use of children who are wards of the state as research subjects.

When the Child Welfare Act was replaced by the Child and Family Services Act in 1985, the section governing confidentially and access to records was never proclaimed. Marv Bernstein, director of policy development at the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, has "consistently recommended" that a new law be developed because "this hole leads to policies not being uniform - it's unpredictable." For instance, one agency may provide more liberal disclosure than another, so that information isn't always shared equally among agencies and professionals working with the same child. Bernstein says the section wasn't proclaimed because of concerns about the cost and complications of compliance. Across Canada, some provinces use generic privacy legislation, while others have specific legislation for wards of the state. Ontario is currently consulting its information and privacy commissioner about the legislation.

Later this year, the Child Welfare League of Canada will release a resource kit to help children's aid societies deal with research requests. Executive Director Peter Dudding says it will provide research and ethics protocols for the societies. As for medical researchers, "we are satisfied there are substantial processes … dedicated to looking at the ethics."

In Hamilton, "all the i's were dotted, and the t's were crossed," says Dudding. "Nobody was doing anything malicious."

The study, led by Dr. Harriet MacMillan of McMaster's Canadian Centre for Studies of Children at Risk, is looking at whether girls aged 12 to 16 who have been abused have a different stress response than girls who have not been abused. The goal is data that would lead to better, earlier treatment of depression.

Participants have a psychiatric assessment, electroencephalograph and various stress tests every 6 months. Originally, the researchers wanted blood samples, but the children's aid societies refused the request, saying it was too invasive; saliva samples are taken instead. As of Nov. 9, 2001, 68 girls had been recruited; not all were CAS wards. In addition to REB approval and other steps, the girls were asked for permission.

"We would adhere to the same [ethical] standards regardless of whether there is provincial legislation," says MacMillan.

The 3 societies involved were satisfied that her research met 3 necessary requirements: no negative impact on the children, assured confidentiality and some benefit to the children involved and to the field generally. "We felt for teenage girls, because the issue of depression can be significant," says Dominic Verticchio, executive director of Hamilton's CAS. "It could provide some indicators that the girls had more problems. We saw [the research] as an assessment tool for us and the services at the health sciences centre were made available, so we felt it was beneficial."

Confidentially was also assured when researchers signed the oaths, which "aren't unlike the one signed by our staff." This was the Hamilton society's first participation in research involving wards.

"The headlines [in the Hamilton Spectator] made it look like the kids were guinea pigs and we didn't take our responsibilities seriously," said Verticchio. "Nothing could be further from the truth."

MacMillan and Dudding both say it would be a big mistake to stop research of this nature. "There is a paucity of research in child maltreatment," says MacMillan. "These are crucial issues that need to be explored and need attention. We need extra strict ethical standards, but we still need to ask meaningful questions."

— Barbara Sibbald, CMAJ
No one should be using children in care, this is unethical.

Anonymous said...

The doctors in Ontario are abused by young social workers all the time, they threaten there medical licence,
They are sick of it, others use the system to hide from malpractice.
Speak to your own doctors ask them how they feel, you will be surprised, there not happy, and feel CAS is a problem. Its a system that has went after to many doctors for the so called risk crap as well, perhaps CAS should have made sure there really was a concern before knocking on some of the doors they have. enmeshment because a child is doing better then her peers in school, perhaps that will ring someone's bell, how many doctors did you pull that one on, a few to many.
This is a province with a sever doctor shortage, perhaps, we could attract a few more by getting rid of the CAS, and asking the police to investigate child abuse.But Health care does not seem to be a priority with this government roads are however.
as the pro CAS poster pointed out are.

People talk, e-mail, not only are the doctors unhappy so are many of the teachers, everyone knows this agency is out of control, that its more harmful to children.

Not just the over emotional drug addicts, living on welfare having baby's every 10 months,and feeding them heroine! instead of milk.
LOL, We know that is the picture the CAS would like to paint for us all, however,its not working.
And I am sure as more people come forward and there are plans to do so, as groups as Ontario's best and brightest, along with the family's, and children, things will have to change, or those left behind, will only be the agency's and Minister Chambers.
Ontario does not have much to offer many anymore.

Anonymous said...

As I said before good luck--you are going to need it.

I am still waiting for the so-called doctor to put his/her name to her piece of work on the blog.

I would love a one-on-one with him or her. I don't believe this will happen as he/she didnt write this piece to begin with.

Other than that I have better things to do than communicate with this blog any longer. I will check back periodically for the doctors name.

It is your loss-you need as many people in your corner as possible. People who have an "in" with this organization.

Anonymous said...

To Pro CAS:

How incredibly lame - you fool no one. You claim you would love a "one on one" with the doctor. You have the means to obtain her private contact information. If you had any real wish to speak with her, you would pick up the phone and follow through. Alternatively, you may wish to consult other doctors whose names appear - as you know their contact may be obtained through the College or Internet searches.

How transparent to claim you have better things to do than to communicate with this blog any longer. The truth is, you are running away with your tail between your legs.

Thanks for confirming you consider yourself to have an "in" with CAS. That would explain much of your insanity and give new readers a valuable insight into the the demented individuals that work for these organization and rabid supporters like you. You have performed a great service without even realizing it.

Finally, you are the last person anyone would want in their corner. Despite your ridiculous self-assessment of your own importance, you are nothing more than a coward whose only interest is to beat up on others by lying and manipulating the facts. That is CAS to a T. No one will mourn your loss.

Anonymous said...

My God,

Peter Dudding has no problem involving CAS kids in testing unknown drugs but was behind the movement to label parents criminals if they spanked their kids. No doubt that would create more kids for testing. By the way, Dr. Eddie Kingstone, the psychiatristic who doled out addictive drugs to his patients (to the point that a patient with no drug history died)was Chair of the Faculty of Health Sciences at McMaster.

Anonymous said...

That CAS poster is nuts. I remember her posting that family members never come forward to help the children when there are CAS. According to Mary McConville," It is not unusual for family members to come forward where we have protection concerns." (National Post, Feb. 22, 2003)

So much for this person's "in" with CAS. Anyone that would pretend to be "in" with such an evil agency as a means to attack others is sick beyond belief.

Anonymous said...

Not only was Sherrie Charlie killed in the home of a child welfare employee - this woman was involved in an abusive relationship with the murderer - a situation that is not uncommon for CAS employees. The child of one I knew blamed her for his father's suicide(what a stable family). Others were divorced, drunks, militant man haters, etc.

As the bible says: Physician heal thyself.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who has dealt with CAS knows it insists on you accepting responsibility for wrongdoing - even when you are completely innocent. If you object to their moronic "counselling" programs it is used against you as evidence of denial. Yet, when CAS is shown to have engaged in serious misconduct, it goes to absurd length to deny its guilt. Jeffrey Baldwin is one incident. The social worker that duct taped her adoptive daughter to death is another - she even claimed the girl wrapped herself in the tape.

The same thing applies to the CAS poster - living in a fantasy land of wild accusations against others while personally demonstrate every quality she accuses others of having. Remember her saying "deny it all you want." She is in major denial. Same goes for manipulating facts, lying and so on.

My question is what is with these people - always attacking others for the faults they demonstrate in spades. It's almost a Jeckyl and Hide sort of thing. If anyone has any insights I would love to hear them.

Anonymous said...

There are many good posts about adoption on this blog.

Using parents that lose children as a reason for adoption couldn't be more backwards. Adoption should be restricted to tragedies by which children lose parents. Strangers should only be involved if other family members can't step forward.

The way our government treats families and children is disgraceful.

Anonymous said...

I agree and it is scary as hell to know who the government is working with the "adopt" kids out - that have families. Many kids in care likely have people who can raise them and who want to raise them in their own family. But the emphasis will be on infertile couples, gay couples and anyone who "wants" a child. The crown wards will be farmed out all over the earth via the Internet with the government and various private baby brokers. It is a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

How stupid are people using Crown Wards and children in care for any kind of research, its disgusting, but for that study, PLEASE is the doctor for real Harriet Mac Millan sound like an idiot, of course girls that have been abuse have a different stress response, DUH, rats do. dogs do, women do, so why would not girls, and perhaps being more abused in care, YES they suffer from more depression in care,there is no stability.
Who the hell gave them the funds to waste the money. This is not even scientific, its common sense however. something CAS and there so called experts are sorely lacking.
And one would think and EEG just might be more invasive then a blood test, also the poking and probing of young vulnerable minds, let alone taking anyone into a hospital to do any kind of testing, with all the virus and unknowns, and Mc Masters reputation for killing young patients and covering it up. Its ped dept should be closed.After reading about two young patents that died in the ICU after surgery, medical error. I would fear taking my cat to that place.They also love to call CAS on everyone for everything. Bump from falling out of bed is reason to call CAS.

if psychologist and psychiatrist are seriously doing this kind of boondoggle research, its all to telling they don't have much on the ball.

Anonymous said...

Funny CAS employees are never used as guinea pigs in drug tests. Dominic Vertichio could hardly deny that CAS constantly claims stress and depression levels for social workers are high - in fact, stress leave is an every day occurance with these agencies.

Obviously, there is a "paucity" of research about social workers - Why they maliciously abuse families through threats, unwarranted court actions, false affidavits, etc. These are crucial issues that need to be explored. After all, we need extra strict ethical standards and require meaningful answers to such questions

As for children involved with CAS, the reasons for their depression are obvious.

Anonymous said...

I think the last poster has a good point, it is very obvious why children have depression after being removed from their families. Even in cases of real abuse children do not enjoy being different. Too many could be raised within the family but no - the CAS prefers to ship them all over the earth with strangers - then they do studies and try and come up with answers. It is ridiculous. The studies are cheap shots at research to somehow prove that they are right, when everyone knows what they do is very, very wrong.

But the greatest crime of all is that while researchers can access the files of these children, the kids cannot even see their own files - not only while in care, but as adults looking for answers. Another question is why are strangers allowed to peruse one's personal file yet individuals cannot see files directly about their own life?

LoveCry said...

LoveCry works for Street Kids most of whom came directly from abusive Chindren's Aid Society Homes and grou homes. Jeffery Baldwin is my cousin. This is not the only member of my family that Children's Aid society has destroyed or killed.
Thank yo for puting this blog up and keep up the great work. http://lovecryca.com
http://lovecry.org
Blesisngs and Love
Angel

Anonymous said...

Angel, I cannot express how sad I am about your cousin Jeffrey or how angry I am that this happened to that beautiful, darling little boy.

I think anyone that is trying to help the victims of the CAS is doing a good job. The silent, invisible survivors of a system out of control that leaves its victims to rot in the streets.

It should be no surprise to the public that after being taken from one's family all too often as the family was poor - and then being farmed into numerous homes with no oversight, and being abused in between would break any human being down - prompting them to abuse drugs, alcohol or anything to numb the pain.

The pro-CAS poster hates people that are broken down - but hatred like that allows the victims to remain invisible - instead they need to be heard in great and large numbers.

Anonymous said...

lovecry,

If you haven't posted before, I hope you'll let others you know about this blog. It's very important that people - especially those with no CAS experience - become aware of the outrageous manner in which these agencies operate. Anything you can do to bring others to this site would be great.

Anonymous said...

It is your loss-you need as many people in your corner as possible. People who have an "in" with this organization.

The ONLY people that wish to have an "in" with the CAS are baby brokers, and those who make a living from selling other peoples children. No one with any level of integrity wishes to bed down with the CAS.

One does not need an "in" with the CAS to do what is right. And "into" what might we ask? Dishonesty, thievery, corruption and LIES.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for confirming you consider yourself to have an "in" with CAS. That would explain much of your insanity and give new readers a valuable insight into the the demented individuals that work for these organization and rabid supporters like you. You have performed a great service without even realizing it.

WELL SAID - the mind of a baby broker is very scary.

Anonymous said...

Hatred and fear is the greatest weapon to destroy families - those that "practice" this as in "practitioners" have it down to a fine art. But, I suspect the public is becoming more aware.

Anonymous said...

How To Find a Child? A workshop in child abduction - and this is who the Minister is "working" with?

Anonymous said...

I think we should start a campaign to "build" families, after destroying real one's and lump it in with actual child protection. Quite devious, and very disturbing.

Children are being bought and sold for massive amounts of money hidden under "administrative fees".

Why would it cost $10,000 to "adopt" a child?

Perhaps the brokers would like to be sold for that amount to a foreign country where they have no ties to their real families, and where they are sold into servitude for infertile couples, gay couples, or anyone that "wants" a child. Perhaps then and only then will they know that children do NOT WISH TO BE BOUGHT AND SOLD TO STRANGERS FROM STRANGERS.

Is the sale of children "protection" or "exploitation"?

Anonymous said...

And this perverse plan has got the government okay as the coercion will somehow be seen as open?

Anonymous said...

Make the parent invisible, make them the enemy - induce fear, induce hatred. Chapter one - subsection 7 in the handbook of LIES.

Anonymous said...

"Build" families on heartless oppression, hatred, lies and illusions. To the "highest" bidder - children are products.

How to Find a Child? "Adoption is the price of a car, it could be a luxury sedan, or a compact model".

Perhaps the Minister did not see - and does not see what is really going on.

Many others do, and no one supports this great plan to hunt down children for - "infertile couples, gay couples, and anyone who "wants" a child.

How much are you worth? I thought that selling human beings went out with slavery? Guess, I was wrong - but not wrong in that selling babies and children is completely and totally evil.

Anonymous said...

If you love children - look into their faces and ask what price value they are? Is this love, humanity or kindness?

I DON'T THINK SO!

Anonymous said...

Bill 210 makes real families strangers, and infertile strangers "Mommy" and "Daddy" - but after all they worked with a broker to design it to start with.

The whole thing is putrid.

Anonymous said...

They also "adopted" the writings of the former chief legal defense of the Toronto CCAS - the VERY AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOF JEFFREY. But no, the public is just going to swallow this mountain of lies?

Too late, we don't "buy" it - nor would anyone who actually loves other human beings, condone children being virtually "sold".

Anonymous said...

In my life, I have known a wide range of people, professionally and socially - including parents and families of every description.

At one end of the scale, there are those on welfare, some who that have abused alcohol or drugs and people with criminal records. At the other end, there are those of significant wealth that I have served professionally.

The point I want to make is that I've never personally encountered even one situation where removing a child from his/her family is warranted. CAS would like us to believe that abuse is constantly lurking behind every door. In fact, CAS'practice of seizing children without any credible evidence of abuse is causing immense damage to the fabric of our society. Lunatics with mind-sets similar to the CAS poster populate this system and are effectively running the asylum.

There are very few parents whose actions are not motivated by the long-term interests of their children. Each parent has a wealth of experience (both good and bad) to determine the best approach to raising them, given the reality of their own situations.

Meanwhile, the open contempt that CAS demonstrates towards families and children has become a major contributor to a host of social problems that are plagueing our society.

I completely agree with those who have said that CAS removes children from their families on any pretence or excuse. It is nothing more than an industry that relies on a continuous inflow of "victims" to survive.

CAS is among the most perverse examples of government-sanctioned injustice I have ever heard of in a democracy.

It deserves nothing less than to be scrapped.

Anonymous said...

It is an industry where they hunt down and re-abuse those who are vulnerable - and where children are farmed out to strangers for someone else's problems. Children are used - their bodies, and souls bought and sold - from strangers - and to strangers.

This is "child protection" in a Big Brother realm of power that had never been reined in.

Bravo for Andre Marin - a man who I am quite sure has integrity over a putrid industry that uses children for other people.

The time is now to stop it - the time is now to stop a cycle of abuse, dysfunction, lies and corruption.

How much are you for sale? Why are children being taken from loving people who are poor and who need help - to be shipped to wealthy, infertile strangers?

Do children "wish" to be bought and sold?

I DON'T THINK SO!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

In my life, I have known a wide range of people, professionally and socially - including parents and families of every description.

At one end of the scale, there are those on welfare, some who that have abused alcohol or drugs and people with criminal records. At the other end, there are those of significant wealth that I have served professionally.

The point I want to make is that I've never personally encountered even one situation where removing a child from his/her family is warranted. CAS would like us to believe that abuse is constantly lurking behind every door. In fact, CAS'practice of seizing children without any credible evidence of abuse is causing immense damage to the fabric of our society. Lunatics with mind-sets similar to the CAS poster populate this system and are effectively running the asylum.

There are very few parents whose actions are not motivated by the long-term interests of their children. Each parent has a wealth of experience (both good and bad) to determine the best approach to raising them, given the reality of their own situations.

Meanwhile, the open contempt that CAS demonstrates towards families and children has become a major contributor to a host of social problems that are plagueing our society.

I completely agree with those who have said that CAS removes children from their families on any pretence or excuse. It is nothing more than an industry that relies on a continuous inflow of "victims" to survive.

CAS is among the most perverse examples of government-sanctioned injustice I have ever heard of in a democracy.

It deserves nothing less than to be scrapped.

Sunday, April 30, 2006 12:58:09 PM


I LOVE WHAT YOU HAVE SAID HERE - and ditto from me. We are all just human beings - we make mistakes, we all have issues. Using children to be the patsies for an industry out of control is purely evil.

And you are more then right in that "lunactics" support the system. Those who are mentally ill sell children, and those who are mentally ill buy them too.

The system is one of total dysfuntion - in a cycle of abuse that must stop and end if anyone really loves children. The obvious is to also care for their parents and to help them. Is farming them to the homes of dysfunctional strangers help?

I don't think so? Take a look at those who are in the industry of destroying families and ask if they are playing with a full deck?

Anonymous said...

Are those that actively engage in destroying people to "build" families sain? I don't think so.

I truly believe most of the people in child protection are mentally ill - and they try and convince those who can see the truth as being what they really are.

They don't want to hear the truth, they don't want to see the truth - they are the problem, they always have been. Is shipping children around the globe help?

How much are you for sale? The Minister is working with a group that had the motto, "adoption is the price of a car, it could be a luxury sedan, or a compact model"?

As I write this children are being bought and sold by an army of evil baby brokers - those who are black, special needs - or less than "perfect" from the brokers and the buyers are sold for less.

It is putrid, and it is evil - and the only people that want the wheels of hell to continue are those that sell children, and those willing to buy them too!

Anonymous said...

Adopters who abuse and kill - the website. This is WHAT HAPPENS when the mentally ill believe other people are their own - and sell children to strangers for a living.

To be not related is safety? The tabula rasa in a theory that in and of itself is totally insain.

Strangers are 1000 times more dangerous and abusive and anyone who has survived the system knows that.

So why has the Minister and the government bedded down with a broker?

It should be enough to keep anyone awake at night. Why is the government IGNORING the truth to keep this filthy industry in motion???

The Liberals better get out of bed with a broker and try and repair this system - the damage is too big to sweep under the carpet, and it will be the death of their political careers if they continue to support it.

The NDP are stepping up to the plate. As I said the last time the politicians tried to screw with the CAS victims/survivors they lost.

Anonymous said...

Do not get in bed with brokers and expect anyone to respect you. After all they have an "in" with the CAS. They nicely paved the way for their "business".

Take a good look at the beautiful face of Jeffrey Baldwin and ask yourself how much he might have been for sale? How much are you for sale or someone that you love?

Anonymous said...

"How To Find a Child"? Take a close look and ask if this is sain?

Anonymous said...

I think the government should work with people who "sell" babies as a solution to this nightmare? Gee - how intelligent?

For anyone remotely sain in the Liberal party be rid the brokers or choose the end of your careers. No one will support what is going on - not those who were fostered, those adopted, parents who had their children taken, and even a few adoptive parents who do love children and who do care.

Do not sleep with the enemy - and expect the victims to trust you?

The former party of Ontario did not hear the message to not "screw" with the CAS victims and survivors - they wanted to find the victims over $100,000 a head just for searching for the answers. It brought them down to their knees.

Anonymous said...

They wanted to fine the victims a sum of $100,000 - just for searching?

They LOST, and the Conservatives will always be lost in this - a few care, but the party overall is in bed with the CAS and the brokers.

Until the Liberals bedded down with a broker, they were on the right track. They steered off the course considerably. If they want damage control - get out of bed with brokers, and support the Ombudsman.

Isn't obvious that the only people who support the CAS are those who sell children, and those who buy them too?

Think we don't know the truth, think again.

Anonymous said...

Politicians - is in not in "your best interest" to support the CAS -but I think you all know that - after all why would Bill 210 - a bill created and devised by baby brokers and defense attorneys have been passed without a recorded vote?

Is all well and fine in child protection. Only cowards defend lies. The NDP have stepped up to the plate - where are the Liberals and the rest?

Wining and dining with baby brokers from hell and the CAS? Perhaps - Give the Ombudsman authority and in both parties ask yourselves how much you are worth in dollar figures?

Oh, I get it you bought babies and don't want to admit it - is that it?

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the Liberals here - they were warned to not get in bed with baby brokers from hell as no one supports them, but what do they do? They do the opposite - we gave an olive branch here - but the bough broke when they made laws to promote brokers, and when they made laws from the pleadings of defense attorneys who defended the CCAS. The very agency responsible for Jeffrey Baldwin - what do they do? They "adopt" a clause from the former chief legal defense to make those agencies even more unaccountable.

The whole thing is putrid. The NDP are the ONLY party that has any guts, the rest have sold themsevles to a vile industry.

Anonymous said...

The Kilshaw's a shining example of who wants to "buy" children.

Jeffrey's siblings should be able to be raised with their other grandmother, and not be shipped to strangers to "cure" their problems. They have enough to deal with and those who love them in their family should be able to see them. How wrong it is to brand the whole family as being like the murderers.

Anonymous said...

That is a good suggestion to Lovecry - that they ask others to visit this site. I would also love to see if they can help former foster kids, and others access a computer at a library or other place to hear their stories. It is long overdue that people were heard - what has been covered so far is a good start.

The people who were in the system by the CAS are the true voices of how it operates, and are the one's with the most knowledge - not those trying to bury the truth under the carpet.

Anonymous said...

The so called practitioners in private adoption are 1) former CAS workers 2) current CAS workers which is even more chilling and 3) those who have adopted and who have hunted down a child.

There is a vast difference between those who may have innocently adopted a child then those who actively engage in hunting one down.

It is a huge conflict of interest to have a CAS worker also being a so called practitioner - they are hunting for a product and the CAS gives them the means, and the way to hunt - while the private deal the final goal.

To the poster that said if the baby ends up in the system they almost never return - the mob is getting tired of buying Chinese babies for $30,000 a head and they need fresh meat for their industry.

It is pathetic that children are being sold as an outcome of the child protection industry and it is shameful. In the UK it is not allowed for good reason - it is vile to sell children. Removing abuse is one thing, selling is another. The Brits find it to be revolting.

I fear for immigrant families who will be especially targeted in this new witch hunt - they are vulnerable for a number of reasons and will be easy prey for the CAS and brokers. I hope that anyone working with immigrants warns them of the perils of the CAS - they want fresh meat for their industry.

I love the idea of a crisis nursery to really help people instead of this ongoing, evil business of brokering children to strangers.

Anonymous said...

In my life, I have known a wide range of people, professionally and socially - including parents and families of every description.

At one end of the scale, there are those on welfare, some who that have abused alcohol or drugs and people with criminal records. At the other end, there are those of significant wealth that I have served professionally.

REPLY - you know between any type of a family their children would have one thing in common I am quite sure - none wish to be removed from their own flesh and blood wish is a trauma all on its own. I also think that the other grandmother of Jeffrey if she had custody - well this would not have happened. The CCAS has no business punishing others not involved for this huge tragedy. Having a relative that loves the children might repair some of the damage in teaching them that the whole family is not bad - with that notion it might be able to help them to know that they are not bad either and to identify with something positive in their family instead of just horror.

I wonder how they are doing? I also hope that the Ombudsman can get in there - truly the first thing he could do is to ENSURE that they are safe, as considering the CCAS it does scare me to think of what is going on with them. The family not involved has a right to know that the kids are not in further danger.

Anonymous said...

one of the baby brokers, contracted by Minister Mary Ann Chambers to do director review ( the so called impartial complaints process)
CAS complaint , about trying to steal a child to sale,
he did not even know who Jeffery Baldwin was.
Why does the Minister use a adoption lawyer for director review? And why does the CAS still try and control it all and the lawyer allow it. They are in bed with baby brokers.

When will anyone tell the truth.

Anonymous said...

This is a good question about the lawyer and what in the hell is a private baby broker who captures infants for infertile couples doing in charge of the crown wards? These people do not give a CRAP about the crown wards - the wards are too old for the bulk of their business. And furthermore if they had any clue about children or what they reall want they would not be in the business of brokering them to begin with. They are indeed in bed with brokers and it is disgusting!!!

Ontario should get rid of the brokers aside from all of this. In the UK it is illegal.

If the Ministry wants to improve things the last people on earth that are experts are baby brokers -instead they should be listening to former wards in particular, not those promoting selling Chinese babies for $40,000 a head. The whole thing is insain.

On that topic Bruce Rivers also wanted to get in the business of brokering Chinese babies - this after the Randal Dooley nightmare where his step-mother also beat him to death.

Anonymous said...

Moreover, having private baby brokers doing reviews of the CAS would be the same as the Talibhan superseding the Red Cross - it is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

I don't want a private baby broker reviewing the CAS - I want someone with honesty, integrity and who DOES NOT SELL CHILDREN FOR A LIVING TO BE IN CHARGE. Andre Marin and Bill 88 is the only hope in this Godforsaken system!!!

Anonymous said...

In the case of the sex offender which is the original posting of this blog they should indeed give full custody to the father. That is a whole other arena of nightmares with the CAS. They can be gender biased.

Anonymous said...

Of note the various articles on this site are a mere glimpse into the homes that children were sent to in the past, and those that they are sent to today. There are even groups of baby brokers and desperate infertile couples that do not want these stories to even be reported? It is a filthy industry. Those directly affected by the CAS must be heard above CAS lawyers, baby brokers, and misguided politicians - but then that I suspect is the real fear here - they know that too and hence created section 68 of Bill 210.

Anonymous said...

I think there are cases where the child should be removed from an abuser - the difference is that the CAS removes them from the entire family. Men in particular are short changed in this, as our their families. Afterall Jeffrey's other grandmother had no right to see him what so ever. Could it be that was as she was the paternal grandmother? You bet - radical feminism has done a great disservice and has in fact promoted the CAS, baby brokers etc.. Not all men are the enemy either. But really if the CAS would understand that - then the industry would be further hampered. Once you have 2 families involved and once you have 2 families that might be able to help the child - well it leaves the numbers for the clients rather low doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

Baby brokers love the CAS they are best friends together.

Anonymous said...

Finally, you are the last person anyone would want in their corner. Despite your ridiculous self-assessment of your own importance, you are nothing more than a coward whose only interest is to beat up on others by lying and manipulating the facts. That is CAS to a T. No one will mourn your loss.

Friday, April 28, 2006 11:58:40 AM

WELL SAID the only reason why they are on this blog is because they are a broker.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 210   Newer› Newest»