Just Coincidental or is it the Sixties Scoop all over again?

Just Coincidental or is it the Sixties Scoop all over again?
Posted on July 12, 2016 | Derek James | Written on July 12, 2016
Letter type:

Author's Note:

Author's Note:

“What do you expect?” some might ask. “With so many more people reporting child abuse, of course more children are being taken.” But when well-meaning people are constantly encouraged to report even their slightest suspicions, most of those suspicions will be wrong. In other cases, “mandated reporters” almost certainly are calling in reports they think have no merit because they’re afraid of what will happen to them if they don’t.  See Toronto Star article - Daycare operator sued for calling the CAS. Toronto judge orders Tammy Larabie to pay $13,000 to parents of a child she worried wasn’t properly cared for. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/03/27/daycare-operator-sued-for-ca... It’s happening even though there is no evidence that mandatory reporting laws make children safer though there is mounting evidence the opposite is true. The typical cases seen by child protective workers are nothing like the horrors inflicted by London Ontario's Evil Edith. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/suit-settled-in-horrific-ca.... Far more common are cases in which family poverty is "confused" with neglect.

See article: The child catchers are coming.

Aug 15 2016: Classic Wynne-tario: Toronto Star headline is “Poverty the elephant in the room for CAS” a new report written by CAS “researchers”. The report says kids from poor homes twice as likely to be taken. The report claims being poor causes abuse! That’s only partially true. Since the government widened the ‘child abuse spectrum’ CAS workers know they can call anything they want ‘child abuse’ including being poor. Being poor is a CAS manufactured crime.

Of course, we all know CAS like to set a very high standard so that even average parents will fail in court. Since the CAS abuses the presumption of the court and the court hides behind presumption to the point of wilful blindness, the stage has been set for 100 years of CAS litigation fraud!

So far, the Star has failed to report widespread CAS dishonesty in cases, why? There’s a long line of examples to report on. The root of a ‘broken’ family court system is that it’s designed to serve it’s own interests, that includes making as many people ‘guilty’ of child abuse – even if they’ve never had custody or contact with a child! The courts then look ‘essential’ so they can get new, bigger court buildings, just like the wave of new buildings for CAS offices!

While the CFSA is a long document, what it doesn’t say amounts to massive loopholes CASs and courts have been abusing for the last 100 years! Fix the loopholes and vigorously discourage CAS dishonesty (“affidavits sworn with no honest belief”) with financial penalties for lying and the CASs would have no choice but to stop. CAS love public money too much and would hate giving it back!

In a recent PDF posted in the group, it was found how ‘good’ law books are at lying by omission so any reader who needs help is denied important information from day-one!

The CFSA and the Ministry website even lie and refuse to tell parents the Presumptive Rule they need to know: parents are presumed guilty and must understand and use Rebuttable Presumption to disprove CAS claims! The government and Ministry like fooling and blindsiding parents! CAS corporate interests more important then the kids the CAS and government abuse!

Comment by Bill Korbak.


See: They took us to court knowing our children were well cared for.


This audio is a compilation of the legal advice I got from my legal aid lawyer during our court involvement with FCSLLG. As he says, "a good game of chicken" and guess who won...


The following voicemails occurred between our initial CAS involvement and the day before FCSLLG applied for a supervisions order with the courts. FCSLLG withdrew their application, the day the judge would here our side.



Where the child advocate is wrong is it's not the government's reluctance to take ownership and responsibility for a system that protects children in this province,” along all the agencies that collaborate with the societies strategies to achieve their funding goals - it's a total failure to take ownership and responsibility.


Barbara Kay: Children's aid societies gone rogue.

Judge Harper had scathing words for the CAS, whom he charged with becoming “a lead advocate” for the mother and the driving force for the trial. He said that the agency went to great lengths to smother any evidence that countered their theory that the mother was the victim, overlooking her ever-shifting narratives, with their notes referring to her as the “Society’s client.”

It was revealed at trial that mandatory document-sharing/file disclosure was running a year late, and that one CAS supervisor, tasked with providing information to lawyers, had removed 475 pages of notes, records, summaries and emails from the file. (This, by the way, is a criminal offence, although to my knowledge the supervisor has not been charged.) Judge Harper also noted that meetings were held to discuss how to protect the mother and case workers from the father.


CAS vows to appeal ruling of ‘bad faith’

The agency also stands by its decision to seek child protection from the father of three children — a decision that was dismissed by a judge after an unprecedented 154-day divorce and custody battle trial that was spread over three years — executive director Jane Fitzgerald said Monday.



This last article seems to have gone unreported or under-reported by mainstream media.

Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. C.B.D.: Interests of the Children Lead to Quashing of Appeal in Child Protection Context.

[30] First, as I see it, the merits of the Society’s appeal are tenuous, at best. The trial judge concluded that the children of the marriage were not in need of protection from their father. He found that the children would be in need of protection only if they were placed in the custody of their mother. Since the trial judge also concluded that custody of the two youngest children should be awarded to C.D.B., he dismissed the Society’s protection application. Thus, in the trial judge’s view, the Society had failed to demonstrate that any of the children were in need of protection as of the date of his decision (September 2013). (funny the society hasn't vowed to appeal this decision)


Family Advocate.

Families United Ontario.




“Justice will not be served until the taxpayers who aren't directly affected are as outraged as those who are.”

The Peel Memo Leak - back in 2013 the children's aid society claimed there was a province wide funding shortfall of 67 million dollars and decided the best way to deal with that was to act in bad faith and defraud the government out of the tax payers money by adding as many cases to ongoing services as they could, up to 1000 if possible.

Between 2011 and 2013 the 46 separate societies investigated a combined total of 42 000 families or about 14 000 investigations per year, in 2014 - after the Peel memo leak (see link below) - the societies investigated a combined total of over 82 000 families in a single year as reported by the Toronto Star.

Gene Colman, a Toronto family lawyer who handles cases involving CAS, said his office has been puzzled by the substantial increase in people calling because of CAS intervention in their families.

“I thought, ‘What’s going on, why are we getting so many calls?’ I wonder if it’s related. I don’t know,” he said not looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth definition. Don't question the value of a gift



Mary Ballyntyne, executive director of the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, (the society's private lobby group) said she has absolute confidence that more context is going into decisions than “meets the eye.”

“If I truly believed that casework is being done to get your quotas up, not based on the merits of the case, that would be very concerning,” she said.


Strangely - CUPE - representing the "workers" - stood behind the society - defending and justifying the actions of the agency's management - which is actually a privately owned and operated corporation. How many unions will do that for their members employer?

Kevin Wilson, a spokesman for CUPE’s national office totally overlooked the immoral  and criminal aspects of the memo saying, "The Peel CAS, like other CAS providers in Ontario, are chronically underfunded from the province."

On top of that - the union representing child protection workers is firmly opposed to oversight from a professional college, and the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, which regulates and funds child protection, is so far staying out of the fight and the society itself doesn't require their workers to register.

What's funny about this is the union represents other professions that are also required to be members of their regulating bodies and CUPE has never had a problem with that.





Child welfare agency found to have wasted money on office renovations, consultants and bloated management. (like - more than 46 executive directors and it just gets worse from there)

By Norman DeBono, The London Free Press
Monday, March 16, 2015 9:29:31 EDT PM

London’s child welfare agency squandered money on costly office renovations and highly paid, bloated management ranks, a just-released report by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services states.

“They moved walls, installed electric blinds, there was all kinds of money wasted there,” said Karen Cudmore, president of Local 116 of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union that represent CAS workers.

In a 25-page report kept under wraps for months, the ministry slams the CAS for budget deficits, having too many executives, paying them too much, its medical clinic and questionable expenses in its 2013-14 budget.



If the Wynne Government wasn't a co-conspirator to begin with - it's certainly an accessory after the fact.

Accessory after the fact:

23. (1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing that a person has been a party to the offence, receives, comforts or assists that person for the purpose of enabling that person to escape.
(2) [Repealed, 2000, c. 12, s. 92]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 23; 2000, c. 12, s. 92.
Where one party cannot be convicted

23.1 For greater certainty, sections 21 to 23 apply in respect of an accused notwithstanding the fact that the person whom the accused aids or abets, counsels or procures or receives, comforts or assists cannot be convicted of the offence.
R.S., 1985, c. 24 (2nd Supp.), s. 45.

See article:

Province in talks with Peel Children’s Aid Society over strategies in leaked memo.

By Katie DaubsFeature Writer
Fri., March 15, 2013

Children and Youth Services Minister Teresa Piruzza says that if an organization loses sight of its role, that is a serious concern.


See article:

Barbara Kay: Children's aid societies gone rogue.
April 16, 2014


Since then the Wynne (former minister of education with close ties to the society) has killed the bill for Ombudsman's Oversight of the society and replaced it with oversight from the Child Advocate who doesn't have the nearly the same powers to investigate as the Ombudsman's office does AND the Wynne government has failed to enforce Ontario's social worker registration law while continuing to encourage teachers and schools to just trust the society and co-operate with them which is funny considering the society gives the same advise to the families it victimizes.

Although requiring objective facts, the threshold for reasonable suspicion justifying an investigation is not as stringent as the standard required for an arrest.

Wynne claims if she thought she could save a single child - she would blow up the child protection system - then claimed she needs more proof to launch an investigation  - the very thing an investigation is for finding. The concept of having reasonable grounds to begin an investigation seems to completely elude Premiere Wynne much like the concept eludes children's aid society itself.

What Wynne fails to acknowledge is “Wrongly opening or leaving these files open does have a damaging impact on these clients’ and their children's lives and amounts to interferring the natural developement of the child which is child abuse - like a doctor medicating healthly patients isn't doing it to help anyone but themselves.


The fraudulent deception of another person;
the intentional or malicious refusal to perform
some duty or contractual obligation.

Why is Wynne not paying attention to the Ombudsman's Office or MPPs or Social Justice Advocates or Newspaper Headlines like Barbara Kay's April 16, 2014 National Post story -

"Children's aid societies gone rogue." where
the society attempted to deceive Judge Harper
and got caught tampering with the evidence.

Or why is Wynne failing to acknowledge the Auditor General report?

Quote from the Toronto Star.

“The recent auditor general’s report demonstrates
what we have known to be true for a long time; that
the government has a reluctance to take ownership
and responsibility for a system that protects children
in this province,”

Irwin Elman, Office of the Provincial Advocate for
Children and Youth said in a statement to the Star.

“That reluctance has to stop now.”

The auditor’s report describes a child-protection system riddled with problems, from improperly conducted investigations into child abuse to a Ministry of Children and Youth Services failing to fully enforce standards. Societies also fail to make mandatory checks of the Ontario Child Abuse Register, which would signal if caregivers have a history of abuse.

How can Wynne continue talk about the children's aid society like it is still a credible agency?


Members of the children's aid society (by virtue of being essentially "better" people) are held to lower standards and behave worse as result.

Bad behavior on the part of the ingroup members is explained away externally (they made a simple mistake, they were mislead, tricked or somehow forced into the bad behaviors) and is dismissed a meanless by the ingroup members. (PEEL MEMO LEAK - ETC - ETC - ETC - scandal after scandal)

But bad behavior on the part of the outgroup members however signifies the outgroup's true identity and thereby justifies denying the outgroup's right to due process.

Child protection agencies have sweeping powers in Canada —powers that, in many aspects span much wider than police, such as the use of risk assessments no better than a Cosmopolitan quiz to predict the future and base apprehensions on, the Gestapo like attitudes and freedom to act without first obtaining a warrant or court order, unverified sworn affidavits that opens the door wide to unfettered fraud and then there's bizarre privacy under which the child protection agency and government ministry operates in Ontario. It’s a realm where freedom of information laws do not apply and no there's appeal.

It’s a space of many secrets that investigative journalists seem to fear to go. What other privately owned corporation can be responsible for 92 unexplained deaths in 4 years and not face a massive investigation or an army of journalists looking the crack so many children have fallen to their deaths through?


The Pie chart.


I cannot accept, your canon that we are to judge pope, king and social worker
unlike other persons, with favorable presumption that they do no wrong.

If there is any presumption, it is the other way against the holders of the public trust, and
it for us to remember... Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Not 100% Lord Acton.



About The Author

Derek James 1's picture

Married with Children.