How much does child care cost you?

Bryan · February 8, 2009

I take some offense to the implication by some people here that finding yourself pregnant (either on purpose or "by surprise") when not wealthy means that anyone owes you anything.

When my wife got pregnant with our first child, we were both in university. We both worked part time making minimum wage, and lived in a pretty crappy apartment in the inner city of Winnipeg.

Over the next 10 years, we bought a house and a car, my wife finished her degree, and we paid off all of our student loans. For most of this period we were making so little that we actually would have qualified for full welfare without clawbacks if we had chosen to apply for it. It never occurred to us that we would sponge off the system, we went out and worked for what we got.

You do not need to be well off to raise children. You just need to be not lazy.

Edited February 8, 2009 by Bryan

bjre · February 8, 2009

From the website of Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care ( http://www.childcareontario.org/?p=970 ), I saw 22,000 affordable child care spaces are at risk.

I hope CAS ( Children's aid socity) will be cut. Only in Ontario, CAS obtain more than $1.2 billion each year from tax payer.

For each child in care from CAS, they take $87 a day. More than one child from every 100 Ontario children is "in care" from CAS now.

The children in CAS care have less chance graduate from high school and have more chance to end in correction system. And the suicide rate is significantly higher when a child in care by CAS than normal kids. Actually, I think CAS cares only collect evidence to take more and more kids in their care so that they can ask for more and more money from government. They have no time to care about children’s future and other things good to children.

They take more than $100 from every Ontario person each year. They take 1.2 billion a year while real child care's budget has not come yet. (Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care)

If 22000 Ontario children grow up in poverty, how many new problems include crime will be generated?

Did CAS actually do something on this?

No, this is certainly not as important compare with their own high salary and the systems that can keep their organization take more money.

I think CAS is the most harmful thing to the health of Canadian children.

Their budget should be cut to use in a better area that deserve.

Edited February 8, 2009 by bjre

bjre · February 8, 2009

Whew. And people ask me why I don't want to have kids!

That is the reason that Canada need more immigrants.

And with CAS exists, some who have kids have to flee abroad to seek safe environment and better education.

bjre · February 8, 2009

You do not need to be well off to raise children. You just need to be not lazy.

But CAS don't think so.

They can send someone to your home and come with cops to take the kids you love away.

Renegade · February 8, 2009

So you can afford kids? So you take the high and mighty privledge that YOU of means can propogate your family line and all other clans that YOU consider poor in everyway should simply leave the planet ---- do I smell entitlment to life - and death to all others ---now where is my sword?

Yes that is exactly right Oleg. Anyone who cannot afford to provide for their offspring shouldn't be having offspring. Propogating is a privilidge which comes with responsibilties and those who cannot live up to those responsibiltes shouldn't have the priviledge to propogate.

BTW, wealth doesn't automatically make someone qualified to be a parent. There are plenty of wealthy people who shouldn't propogage either.

Edited February 8, 2009 by Renegade

bjre · February 8, 2009

Yes that is exactly right Oleg. Anyone who cannot afford to provide for their offspring should be having offspring. Propogating is a privilidge which comes with responsibilties and those who cannot live up to those responsibiltes shouldn't have the priviledge to propogate.
BTW, wealth doesn't automatically make someone qualified to be a parent. There are plenty of wealthy people who shouldn't propogage either.

If as you said, then why not just write this into Constitution as "Only rich people can have children. Those who don't have enough money have no human right to have child"? Or simply add a new criminal code to arrest all parents that are not rich enough?

Edited February 8, 2009 by bjre

Michael Hardner · February 8, 2009

bjre,

I hope CAS ( Children's aid socity) will be cut. Only in Ontario, CAS obtain more than $1.2 billion each year from tax payer.
For each child in care from CAS, they take $87 a day. More than one child from every 100 Ontario children is "in care" from CAS now.

The children in CAS care have less chance graduate from high school and have more chance to end in correction system. And the suicide rate is significantly higher when a child in care by CAS than normal kids. Actually, I think CAS cares only collect evidence to take more and more kids in their care so that they can ask for more and more money from government. They have no time to care about children’s future and other things good to children.

They take more than $100 from every Ontario person each year. They take 1.2 billion a year while real child care's budget has not come yet. (Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care)

If 22000 Ontario children grow up in poverty, how many new problems include crime will be generated?

Did CAS actually do something on this?

No, this is certainly not as important compare with their own high salary and the systems that can keep their organization take more money.

I think CAS is the most harmful thing to the health of Canadian children.

Their budget should be cut to use in a better area that deserve.

Your argument seems to be:

1. CAS takes money

2. Children in CAS care are at risk

3. You think they just want more money and don't care about the future of children.

1, and 2 would seem to be obvious, and you haven't given any evidence of 3 at all. You have just said that that's what you think.

Explain to us why you think that, if you want to convince us.

bjre · February 8, 2009

bjre,
Your argument seems to be:

1. CAS takes money

2. Children in CAS care are at risk

3. You think they just want more money and don't care about the future of children.

1, and 2 would seem to be obvious, and you haven't given any evidence of 3 at all. You have just said that that's what you think.

Explain to us why you think that, if you want to convince us.

The main job of CAS is collect evidence and convert kids into "In care" kids. In Ontario, about 30000 kids are in CAS's care, how many employees they have? it is impossible for them to have time to do anything but collect evidence. After that, they can send kids to foster care, and then repeat collect evidence. Or they talk to kids regularly, with the most ugly things human being can do like, do your parents beat you? have you sex abused? Did you tried to kill yourself... These kind of questions have been asked to lots of kids who knows nothing of that and have the first chance in their life to understand such ugly things that make them familiar and feel natural. They made the kids in their care become special in school that teachers and others look them differently to increase the psychological pressure on them. Teachers and other kids can often see them be picked away by principle by interrupt whatever they are doing.

So that it is not surprised that result is only 24% children in their care can graduate from high school while 36% end up in correction system according to a report from BC.

(

http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/publications_f...blic-forum.html

)

And this does not make CAS stop their access to children and parents, how can this not be consider as they are totally ignore the future of the kids?

Add an audio story:

http://www.archive.org/download/subwayride/subway.mp3

Edited February 8, 2009 by bjre

Renegade · February 8, 2009

If as you said, then why not just write this into Constitution as "Only rich people can have children. Those who don't have enough money have no human right to have child"? Or simply add a new criminal code to arrest all parents that are not rich enough?

No it is not enough, nor is it necessary, to be rich to be a parent. What is necessary is to be qualifed. IMV, to be qualified a potential parent needs to satisify multiple criteria, including emotional stability, maturity, commitment and yes be able to afford kids. Some poorer potential parents would not qualify if they couldn't meet the criteria for affordability. Some richer parents wouldn't qualify if they did not meet the other criteria.

Yes, I agree, it should be put into the constitution or law.

bjre · February 8, 2009

No it is not enough, nor is it necessary, to be rich to be a parent. What is necessary is to be qualifed. IMV, to be qualified a potential parent needs to satisify multiple criteria, including emotional stability, maturity, commitment and yes be able to afford kids. Some poorer potential parents would not qualify if they couldn't meet the criteria for affordability. Some richer parents wouldn't qualify if they did not meet the other criteria.
Yes, I agree, it should be put into the constitution or law.

After it is put into law, what are you going to do?

Are you going to make enough advertisement to let every Canadian know this and make every potential immigrant know this, or simply try to hide it so that CAS can catch more kids, cops can have more work to do, lawyers can have more cases so that all involved can earn more money and leave more kids in correction system so that again the court system can get more benefits?

capricorn · February 8, 2009

IMV, to be qualified a potential parent needs to satisify multiple criteria, including emotional stability, maturity, commitment and yes be able to afford kids.

I know what you're saying Renegade. But IMV, if your criteria was put into practice, at least half of potential parents would not qualify and our population growth would go into the minus.

Renegade · February 8, 2009

After it is put into law, what are you going to do?
Are you going to make enough advertisement to let every Canadian know this and make every potential immigrant know this, or simply try to hide it so that CAS can catch more kids, cops can have more work to do, lawyers can have more cases so that all involved can earn more money and leave more kids in correction system so that again the court system can get more benefits?

In the same way that every other new law gets implemented! It would seem to be you have a poor argument if your only objection is that resident or potential resident won't know about it.

You also seem to have a fixation with CAS. Did your child get taken away by CAS, perhaps because they did not see you as a fit parent?

Edited February 8, 2009 by Renegade

Renegade · February 8, 2009

I know what you're saying Renegade. But IMV, if your criteria was put into practice, at least half of potential parents would not qualify and our population growth would go into the minus.

Sure lots wouldn't qualify. So what if the population didn't grow? People take it as a given that population growth is a good thing. I'm not certain it is. It has as many drawbacks as it has benefits. Just think about the pressure put on the resources and the environment by additional population. Could we accomodate reduced populatoin? - Most certainly!

Edited February 8, 2009 by Renegade

capricorn · February 8, 2009

So what if the population didn't grow? People take it as a given that population growth is a good think. I'm not certain it is.

I agree about the stresses resulting from growing the population. I would be happy if we reproduced and brought in immigrants at a rate just to maintain our present population.

bjre · February 8, 2009

In the same way that every other new law gets implemented! It would seem to be you have a poor argument if your only objection is that resident or potential resident won't know about it.

No, my main opinion is CAS should be cut because it makes not only so many family suffered, but also so many kids victimized and become poor educated and criminalized.

You also seem to have a fixation with CAS. Did your child get taken away by CAS, perhaps because they did not see you as a fit parent?

This has nothing to do with this topic although I am glad all my kids are very well and receiving better education than average Canadian kids.

However, a lot of other kids are not so lucky, here is some examples:

http://vimeo.com/766883?pg=embed&sec=766883

http://vimeo.com/1018929?pg=embed&sec=1018929

Renegade · February 8, 2009

No, my main opinion is CAS should be cut because it makes not only so many family suffered, but also so many kids victimized and become poor educated and criminalized.

I don't know enough about CAS to know. It may be with CAS that the execution is poor, however the intent is nobel. Are you against protecting the rights of children from parents who abuse those rights?

If not, please explain how you intend to protect those kids if you cut or eliminate CAS.

In any case my point has got nothing to do with CAS. If you restricted the opportunity to parent to those who are qualified, then perhaps you would have less need for CAS.

bjre · February 8, 2009

I don't know enough about CAS to know. It may be with CAS that the execution is poor, however the intent is nobel. Are you against protecting the rights of children from parents who abuse those rights?
If not, please explain how you intend to protect those kids if you cut or eliminate CAS.

1. I think most parent that said to be abusive loves their kids. Some just for education, others may just happen to not control themselves very well just like drive after drinking. Those are simply accidents. They are not intentionally abuse their kids.

However, once kids are put into "in care" system, they become really under an environment that near the worst small part of the society that full of real abuse, ignorance, lies, criminal, violence, drugs. That will definitely change the whole life of the kids.

We need to study.

We already have the statistics said only 24% kids under such system can graduate from high school.

Did anyone do some study on if a group of kids that are reported abused, after that, CAS and police and the court system do nothing, how many can graduated from high school even college, how many be killed, how many suicide? How many becomes criminals. Although these is no statistics now, I think we can compare this with a country that has no so strick CAS, such as Japan, Korea, or others to see if only 24% graduated. I believe they will have a much better result.

There is a theory, some doctors say the best way to recovery from a disease is by one's own immunization system, so if we can live without medicine, we'd better do that and try to recover with better living habit, better food, and others. So I think maybe the best way is just let it be.

It is better for a "mature" society make decision or legislation based on study with scientific methods such as statistics, instead of just by opinion after emotionally publish one or two cases on the media.

2. For crime, we have police, I think they can handle.

3. If you think something must be done, I think maybe police can send them a warning and keep a record that if they will be found the second time, they will be charged.

4. For the kids really need foster care, I believe this is better be handled by a government department that their salary has nothing to do with the number of the kids "in care", this would avoid any business organization making profit on children tears.

In any case my point has got nothing to do with CAS. If you restricted the opportunity to parent to those who are qualified, then perhaps you would have less need for CAS.

With the large budge saved from CAS (In Ontario 1.2billion a year), children care system can use it to help poor kids.

For the kids living in poverty, when CAS take "in care", they ask for $87 a day from tax payers, that money is far more than enough for help kids living with their parents and improve the living condition.

Who's Doing What? · February 8, 2009

I get no joy from people now understanding the uselessness of the CPC platform on daycare in 2006. But I was right damn it!

Bryan · February 9, 2009

I get no joy from people now understanding the uselessness of the CPC platform on daycare in 2006. But I was right damn it!

How was it useless? It helped me out greatly. Reduced cost for childcare, and a lot more choices of how to take care of your kids. For those that want an 'institutional' daycare, there are a lot more choices too. There are new centres opening up all over the place around here. Probably more spaces than necessary actually, since the one at the end of my street still had 15 openings the last time I checked.

Edited February 9, 2009 by Bryan

Oleg Bach · February 9, 2009

The most dishonest phrase that exists regarding children is "early childhood education" - It actually means child abuse - to drag a sleeping infant out of bed at 6 in the morning - transport that person to some smelly facilty - drop them off with strangers that in effect the poor child employs and is in fact not just an employer but actually child labour is a disgrace...the soviet style daycare that people like Jack Layton advocate is CHILD ABUSE. If Layton was not so ambitious and stupified by some commie crap that he learned in university - he might actually do some good by lobbying the banks and corporations - to pay one individual a living wage so ONE could support of a family instead of enslaving mother - under the guise of benevolent liberation.

BigAl · February 9, 2009

Then why do you continue with your life.

I figure since I'm already here I'll do what I can to make it worthwhile -- however, I don't have any intention of having kids. Ever. For any reason.

bjre · February 9, 2009

What two western people toss in the garbage as far as food is enough too feed two children. Those that say "we can't afford children as of yet" are quite foolish - children are not a public commodity, nor are they a luxury item. The sacrafice of time is what is really the root of having children - doing your duty for 20 years then kindly over seeing them till you are dead..yes that is a sacrafice - but the only worldy sacrafice worth while. The nation should be lobbying the government so as one person could support a family - the finacial freeing of woman has been a hoax - now the banks have two people they can suck from.

Take a look at the following case:

-------------------------------------------------------

Beeble

Posts: 1

From: Burns Lake B.C.

Registered: 9/18/08

(309 of 315)

Re: Children's Aid Society Corruption

Sep 22, 2008 3:51 AM

The nightmare never ends.

I have a granddaughter that was Born in B.C.. Her mom (My daughter) took her to live with her grandfather (my X). He said there was a job waiting for my daughter and they could stay with him. Well the job was not there. When my daughter went to visit my granddaughters dad . My daughters dad showed up and dropped all their stuff off and said he could not afford to help her. After talking her into coming across Canada. So she went to the government agency to get help so she can get a place for her and her daughter. Instead the government called children`s aid with in 24 hours they took my granddaughter said the house was not safe for her. My daughter moved to a place that they approved, but that was not go enough for them . They wanted her and the babies dad to go to parent classes so they did that ,but that was not go enough either. Then we fined out that because they were only in Ontario for a month and a half they were not resident of Ontario. They have to be living in a provence for at least three month before they become a resident of that Provence. Then they told us it was to late to do anything about it. Not one of the lawyers said a world about this law. I believe they had her already picked for a family because now matter what hoops my daughter jump through it was not good enough for them . Remembrance day is the day the court took her from our family. Now we have to wait till she is eighteen before we can look for her. She is only five this year.

-------------------------------------------------------

from http://boards.aetv.com/thread.jspa?threadI...892&start=0

bjre · February 12, 2009

CAS cost many family a lot of money on rent additional house, lawyer costs, and others.

CAS cost everyone more than $100 a year from tax (Data for Ontario only)

They do things not good.

http://rally4accountability.webs.com/Ottaw...519207_7635.jpg

http://rally4accountability.webs.com/Ottaw...3519218_969.jpg

http://rally4accountability.webs.com/Ottaw...519203_6457.jpg

Edited February 12, 2009 by bjre

bjre · February 23, 2009

90 kids die under the care of Ontario's CAS:

http://www.thestar.com/article/591523

I believe most of the 90 kids won't die if there is no CAS.

The function of CAS is cost TAX and victimize kids.

Edited February 23, 2009 by bjre

Melanie_ · February 24, 2009

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,

Sixteen were accidental; nine were listed as suicides; four were homicides; eight died from natural causes and could probably not have been prevented; 22 were considered undetermined, which means there was no evidence for any specific classification or they fit within more than one classification; 17 are yet to be assigned a classification; and 14 were not considered appropriate by the Coroner for investigation because their deaths were expected due to fragile health.

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.