Melanie_

Did a section of this thread disappear? I'm sure there were more posts earlier, including a link to an article about the case (from Tango?), from the Toronto Star. Or am I imagining things?

You know, bjre, the funny thing is you keep wanting to argue this in black and white terms, and not recognize the complexity of the issue. I’m not arguing with you about whether or not there are problems in the system; if you read the thread carefully you will see that I’ve agreed with you on that. I think there needs to be an accounting for any deaths in the system, and any screw ups like the one you’ve pointed out with “J”. But we still need to find a way to protect children from parents like “Justice Jack”, who sexually abuse their children then insist the problem is the way the stenographer typed her notes. There are people out there who treat their children horribly, and if we do what you want, which is disband CAS completely, we will be turning our backs on those kids. You’ve speculated on my connection with CAS (nonexistent, for the record) – what is your agenda? Has CAS been involved with you as a parent, and are you now trying to find a way to discredit them? You seem to think it is ok to abuse children, and that its no one’s business what parents do to their kids. Maybe you can’t see beyond your own case, but there are many kids who desperately need to be protected from their parents, and as a society we are obligated to do whatever we can to help these vulnerable children. If the system fails, we need to fix the system, not do away with it completely. Here’s a link to the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, 2003. It’s a little longer than the Justice Jack clips you’ve posted, but research tends to be wordier than subjective ramblings and doubtful rationalizations. Pay particular attention to Table 6-3, Age and Sex of Investigated Children, by Primary Category of Substantiated Child Maltreatment, in Canada, Excluding Quebec, in 2003. It shows you that in Canada, outside of Quebec, in 2003, there were over 25,000 cases of substantiated physical abuse; there were almost 3000 cases of substantiated sexual abuse; there were over 30,000 cases of substantiated neglect; there were over 15,000 cases of substantiated emotional abuse; and there were almost 30,000 cases of substantiated exposure to family violence (which has been linked to PTSD in children). There’s a breakdown according to the age and sex of the children involved. How can you say you want to abandon these kids? I do agree with you that more effort needs to be put in to helping abusive parents learn how to change, or even better, learn how not to be abusive in the first place. Preventing child abuse is much better than dealing with it after the fact, or trying to justify it or cover it up, as you want to do. But when it happens, there needs to be a system in place that will protect children, and give them a safe home for as long as they need it. If you come back with more quotes about how bad the system is, I’m not going to respond to you. I’ve already agreed with you that there are problems with the system, and that there should be an investigation into any improprieties. I’m more concerned with your support of child abuse, whether it be physical, sexual, or emotional, or whether in involves neglect. Until you recognize that there are children out there that need to be protected from their parents, and that CAS is trying to address this need, there is no point talking to you.

Do you have a link, Muddy? Or a bit more info? I'd like to know more about this case... was it here in Canada?

You've answered some of your questions yourself, with the links you provided. I've just kept the one from the CBC, as it seems like the most reliable evidence. Lets keep in mind that this kid suffered a great deal at the hands of many different people, all of whom he had a right to expect protection from. I don't want to minimize his trauma in any way, and I agree with you that someone failed him and should be held accountable. From your link.... This kid obviously had some challenges long before CAS was involved; there were medical professionals lined up to identify one syndrome after another. I had to laugh at the next post you made, with an 87 year old man talking about how his life of crime is all the fault of CAS. Really? That sounds like someone trying to shift the blame away from himself and onto any handy scapegoat he can find. He's responsible for the choices he made as an adult, but its so much more convenient to point the finger elsewhere. So, what is your solution, as WIP has asked? You think children should be left in homes where they are being physically, emotionally and sexually abused? There should be no protection offered to them from society at large? You don't want CAS to get involved with families, so that must mean you think abused children should just suffer through whatever hell their parents can dream up, hoping they survive to get out on their own someday.

You’re saying that the CAS involvement is why these kids aren’t graduating from high school? It’s more likely they aren’t graduating because of the reasons they ended up involved with CAS in the first place - they’ve been abused. CAS isn't creating mental illness in that 36% you are quoting; CAS naturally deals with clientele who have a higher incidence of mental illness, probably because of the trauma they've suffered at the hands of abusive parents. CAS isn’t the cause of the problem; you’re making a connection based on false premises.

Tango! We groovy grannies have got to stick together! I'm going to have to pass on the tequila... sometimes, without me even being aware of it, Janis Joplin channels through me when I have some tequila, and before you know it I'm singing , like it or not. But I'll join you in a toke, now and then, if you can help me figure out where an old lady can find some. My arthritis is killing me, so the marijuana is strictly for medicinal purposes.

There are problems with the system, bjre. That isn’t in question. But you are saying that we should do away with the system altogether rather than fixing it. Maybe you need to look beyond your personal issue, which seems to be wanting to beat your child without interference from those who think s/he needs protection. You’ve defended a man (“Justice Jack”) who has been convicted of sexually abusing his 4 year old child. This case has been in and out of court since 1992, according to the video – 15 years of the child saying she was sexually abused by her father, and him saying the court didn’t record the information correctly. You would protect that father from any scrutiny, and allow him to continue molesting his daughter without any interference from CAS. You strike me as someone who got caught doing something very wrong, and is now trying to shift the blame to anyone else rather than own up to it. You’re advocating doing away with all child protection services so that you can be abusive without having to account for your actions. Even if you think your child isn’t in need of protection, how can you deny that there are many other children that are? Here’s a link to info about child abuse in Canada. Any allegation of child abuse must be investigated; its more important to ensure the child is safe than to ensure the parent isn’t embarrassed. If the parent has nothing to hide, there shouldn’t be a problem anyway. Department of Justice Canada Maybe you can look beyond your own blinders and realize there are some very nasty people out there, who do very nasty things to children. You want to protect the abusers; I want to protect the children.

Also, I've read through your other posts, bjre, and of course there is a need to investigate the allegations being made. If funds are being misspent, I expect there will be changes made, and hopefully better safeguards put into place. But that doesn't mean we get rid of the system altogether. Children are being abused, and as a society we can't just turn our back on them.

No, I didn't change my position at all. Just because spanking is legal doesn't mean it is an appropriate form of discipline. And what you are talking about isn't spanking, its child abuse. You are talking about physically wounding a child, to the point that the authorities have to intervene. They don't get involved if a parent has just swatted their child on the bum. The first case you mention, of a child wanting to leave the parents and doing so with the help of CAS... this happens all the time. If a child is in an abusive family, they often want out, and seek help from CAS. Thats what CAS is there for. The second example you gave, the video of "Justice Jack", does nothing to help your argument at all. Did you watch that video? Never once does he deny abusing his children. He just talks about the flaws in the court system, and admits to tampering with evidence. Do you have any actual information about what he is alleged to have done, or what evidence there was against him? How do you know his children aren't better off somewhere else? Some of the allegations involved a child having scars from a shotgun blast, and another child, 4 years old, having a sexual encounter with a banana. He doesn't deny either of these things, he just talks about how the court transcripts have errors in recording the testimony. You've said that the rate of death of children in care is high, but have you compared that rate of death to the rate of death of abused children who are not discovered by the system?

Just because something has been done for thousands of years doesn’t mean it is a good thing. Women were treated as property for thousands of years – does that make it ok? Slavery was part of many cultures for thousands of years – does that make it ok? People have been persecuted because of their beliefs or skin colour or sexual orientation for thousands of years – does that make it ok? Your argument seems to be based on children being removed from their homes because of physical punishment. It isn’t illegal in Canada to spank your child, so a simple spanking isn’t going to result in CAS intervention. The studies you cite all talk about non-abusive discipline, which is acceptable under our criminal code. (Whether or not it should be is another argument.) But, there is a line that can’t be crossed, and that is when CAS gets involved. This statement from you raises red flags all around. What is a “small wound”? It sounds like you are talking about an unreasonable level of violence towards a child, and if so, the child needs to be protected. This reminds me of another thread we had some time ago. The poster came back and deleted all their original comments, but bjre’s writing style is very similar to that poster, bobz.

Take a stand on scalping - Wpg Free Press Tickets for most major events sell out almost before you have a chance to buy them - the Eagles concert here in Winnipeg sold out in 16 minutes (I didn't get tickets.... yes, I'm bitter). But those tickets aren't being bought by the average person, they are being bought by "teams of buyers, armed with sophisticated software", who are able to access tickets even before they are on sale to the general public. They then sell them online, at massive markups. The law in Manitoba and Ontario says that tickets can't legally be sold above the face value, but we all know that people have been doing it anyway, for as long as concerts have been around. Now they've found a way to do it on a grander scale, rather than hanging around the entrance to the arena on concert night. Are Manitoba and Ontario's scalping laws outdated? Should ticket prices for concerts and sporting events just be set by the open market - highest bidder wins?

I haven't read Clarkson's book, but I'm thinking there are probably still some things she can't talk/write about, even though her term is over. For Jean, this might be one of the things she can't talk about either, once her term is completed. Political Talk, write your own damn essay! (I had 40 essays handed in today, which I'm procrastinating on marking as we speak... er, type.)

Don't bother quoting the bible. It is an ancient, outdated book of nonsense. I won't take anything from the bible as a serious argument, particularly when it advocates child abuse. Physical punishment is not necessary for raising children. Physical punishment doesn't teach a child anything about appropriate behaviour; instead it teaches them to fear people who are bigger and stronger than them. As for the unpreventable deaths... many of these children are in care because their medical needs are so far beyond the capacity of their families to deal with. Although more and more children with special needs are staying with their families, it is still perfectly acceptable in our society to put them in a home and have the state care for them. These unpreventable deaths are more than likely the deaths of children whose parents have given them up to the system (I am speculating here, but I've spent many years working with children in various capacities, so I have some anecdotal knowledge of how this works).

This sounds like something Leafless would write! Well, not the words, just the style of writing.

Whether it was hate speech or not, it was stupid and indefensible. He continues to believe what he said about Jews, as this quote shows... This guy led an organization that fought against stereotypes and prejudices? I'm sure he would object to the above comment being made about aboriginals, but he can't see that it's offensive when directed at someone else. What a loser.

Yes, Gordie, Oleg's charm is in his complete insanity.

Well, this is certainly thread drift, but I think the CBC poll is closed by now anyway... Bjre, I think you misinterpreted the article you cited here. Not to dismiss the gravity of having 90 children die, but they weren't all in CAS care. They were known to CAS, which means they either were in foster care, were with thier own families but had an open file, or had their file closed in the past year. Of the deaths, It sounds like at least 22 of the deaths were unpreventable, which makes sense. Lots of chronically ill children become wards of CAS. The rest deserve some answers, and it is good to see articles like this calling attention to it. But I disagree with your position that CAS is the problem. For CAS to be involved, there has to be some problems in the family in the first place. Children don't get taken away unless there is a very good reason to do so.

Oleg, I see your point here... Radio talk show hosts are generally just looking for something to stir people up with. They don't really give a hoot about these two little girls, Cadence and Santana Pauchey. Discussing this on their show just gives them a hot button topic, and likely creates an opportunity for racists to call in and cloak their racism in self righteous indignation. What is an appropriate response to this? I've argued here, regarding a different case, that even though a parent didn't intentionally harm the child, the child is dead. Whether the parent lost control and killed the baby out of frustration, or whether the parent was too intoxicated to adequately protect the child, these children died. Children are vulnerable, and when we excuse parents' lapse of judgment, we are saying that those children's lives were expendable. Part of it is the fact that any one of us fears that it could be us who has the lapse of judgment, and hopes that others will understand. But in the end, I support sending a strong message to parents that they are accountable for their actions towards their kids, even when they are frustrated, even when they are drunk.

Can a priest bear personal financial responsibility for anything? Don't they give up all their worldly possessions, including all money, when they join the priesthood? The way I understand it (and I could be wrong about this, I'm not a Catholic), is the church takes financial responsibility for someone when they join the priesthood. The priest has no money to compensate his victims with, so he gets it from the church.

You're right, its back! Maybe there was a glitch when I clicked on it. Or maybe it was because I, too, drink a little...

I skimmed, but this line jumped out at me... Now I know I can rest easy tonight, because John Newell of Pickering, Ontario is on the case!

The video isn't available anymore. Too bad, I didn't get to see it.

I’m shamelessly stealing August’s thread idea… Revolutionary Road Set in 1955, this movie is about a couple who seems perfect to everyone around them, but behind closed doors they are completely disillusioned with their lives. It’s about unfulfilled dreams, the desperation of watching your life pass you by, the feeling of being trapped in a life you really don’t want. One of the most interesting characters is an inmate from an insane asylum, who isn’t afraid to challenge the façade of the “happy” couple. Kate Winslett and Leonardo DiCaprio both give fine performances, despite a somewhat awkward script. Kathy Bates is perfect in her supporting role. This is not a Leave It To Beaver version of the 50’s. Lots of drinking and smoking (even while pregnant, which was common then), foul language, extra marital shenanigans, and a hard look at what choices were available to women. Anyone who thinks a woman should be content with a lovely little suburban house with a white picket fence, 2 kids, and a husband who brings home the bacon needs to see this movie – the dark side of the fairy tale.

Or singers... remember Sonny Bono?

I think the CBC is interested in what anyone pays for child care. That might mean licensed care, or family child care homes, or the babysitter down the street. Anyone who pays someone else to look after their kid during the day, while they are at school or at work, is paying for child care.